Re: Oppose NSI's redefinition of TLD constituencies

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 09:05 15/04/99 -0500, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote:
>I agree with Patrick's concerns, with additional observations.
>
>The only "constituency" that would gain from throwing out RFC1591 and
>redefining TLDs as being "closed" vs. "open" is Network Solutions Inc.
>(NSI). This same wrong-headed change in the current ccTLD structure was
>proposed in the WIPO RFC last month, and it must be strongly opposed,
>IMHO.
>
Bill, Milton, Patrick and all,

IMHO, the entire split-up of TLD registries into separate constituencies is
a wrong-headed compromise resulting from the original exercise in
market-failure.

That said, I agree with Milton that I do not see how open registries can
easily be forced to become "closed", especially not if they institute a
healthy amount of self-regulation by the registrants and forge alliances in
the DNSO with other stakeholder constituencies.

Patrick's angst seems to stem from the fear to be held accountable by
anyone other than the registry owners, either a national government, or ICANN.
ICANN is the imperfect result of a 3 year quest for accountability by
disenfranchised stakeholders, who have asked for self-regulation of  TLD's,
but who have been rebuffed.

Joop Teernstra LL.M.  
Democratic Association of  Domain  Name  Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz