[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussionof wholesale price for names

[J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin]

On 16:22 29/08/02, todd glassey said:
>Jefsey - you are totally wrong here - You are looking at specific issues
>with the operating process but have neglected any number of critical issues
>to make this comment.  See my retort to Ken for details.

I do not think so. We are basically saying the same thing here as far as I 
understand. There is a system which must work and which needs money. The 
existing scheme is inapropriate: there is no need to explain why, we can 
all see it.

There are many ways to analyse its errors. Our common diagnosys, as far as 
I read you, is that money is at the wrong place. What you say is logic and 
true in term of sales. What I say is also true in terms oif product.

Basically you say how one can better sell Ford cars. I say how we have to 
build them better (please
see my response to Hendrik on this). And we need both an more to revive the 
busines. The internet business is developping in terms of users, but is 
developing in term of usage per user and where (would not that "where" 
better served through more appropriate solutions?)

The whole system has been made unstable in bluring the border between 
information management and relations support: the "ancillary" functions 
which are far more complex than expected. Again Congress - which is the 
leader here unless EU decides to take over - has permitted tuning we need, 
through the "advanced services" left open definition.

As noted on the IETF list, the problem is not to change the technology, but 
the mind of the people.
jfc









>Usually I expect better form you.
>
>Todd
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at club-internet.fr>
>To: <kent at songbird.com>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
>Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 2:47 AM
>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request:
>discussionof wholesale price for names
>
>
> > At 08:39 29/08/02, kent at songbird.com wrote:
> > >Yes, that has been a most interesting discussion.  It has reinforced my
> > >belief that no one -- absolutely no one -- really understands the
> > >behavior of DNS in the large.  One thing seems fairly clear -- the root
> > >zone really is different than a TLD zone.
> >
> > This is a very well taken point. And one of the reasons of the
> > http://dot-root.com project towards experimentation of the DNS evolution
>as
> > suggested by ICANN ICP-3 document.
> >
> > >In any case, it's moot: the issue isn't what the software will support;
> > >the issue is the far more complex matter of the procedures of the
> > >registry/registrar.  Verisign and most other registrars, for example,
> > >have largely automated procedures, and those procedures are not perfect
> > >-- there are many horror stories about lost domains, customer service
> > >screwups, and the like.  The idea that the root zone should be run under
> > >a similar model is entertaining, but it is simply never going to happen,
> > >regardless of the most fervent libertarian fantasies.
> >
> > Totally true. The current US dominance model maintained by ICANN at least
> > works. Most probably not for long as there are several horror stories
>about
> > TLDs not being updated after months and even years. So it is urgent that
> > all together we start working the hardway: analysis, studies,
> > specifications, development, test, validation, acceptance loops and loops,
> > towards the Intenational concertance.
> >
> > Rome was not build in one day.
> >
> > >This has nothing to do with ICANN, per se -- any agency with serious
> > >pretentions of management of the root zone would inevitably be drawn into
> > >the same position.
> >
> > Totally true again. This is why the agency model cannot continue to
>support
> > the job. And must be replaced by a concertance for decision process and a
> > collaboration for operation management. This is well introduced by ICP-3.
> > This is the only solution for a registry failure to have an impact only on
> > that registry and to lead them to be self-responsible. ICANN cannot
> > continue to babby-sit the world. The world is to grow up and take care of
> > its destiny by itself.
> >
> > jfc
> >
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/02