New registry services (Jisuk,Carlos,Marc - please note)

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Marc Schneiders,


> I am sorry if my remarks sounded as theoretical. I was of a very
> practical mind, I thought myself. How can we talk about something, if
> we don't know what it is? To make it worse: I think ICANN staff does
> know what it has in mind. It would be most helpful, if we knew too.

I can see your intention. And here, I have no objection.


> > As you asked, I am also wondering how many and what kind of such services
> > could be available. Then, I think many unexpected possible services could
> > be available as we looked at such examples like WLS and wildcard services.
>
> Verisign called sitefinder a new service. It is not a new service, it
> is changing the behaviour of an old servive. WLS is a new service. It
> went through a process within ICANN.

This is your argument. And I respect your argument as it is. And also, I
think you are pinpointing very important aspect of this issue. But, to
call it as a new service or not depends on their ideas. It is not so clear
to everybody.

As you know, IAB wrote as this; "There are many architectural assumptions
regarding DNS behavior that are not specified in the IETF standards
documents describing DNS, but which are deeply embedded in the behavior of
Internet protocols and applications. These assumptions are inherent parts
of the network architecture of which the DNS is one component.

"There are many architectural assumptions regarding DNS behavior that are
not specified in the IETF standards documents describing DNS, but which
are deeply embedded in the behavior of Internet protocols and
applications. These assumptions are inherent parts of the network
architecture of which the DNS is one component.

It has long been known that it is possible to use DNS wildcards in ways
that violate these assumptions."

As you say "it is not a new service, but changing a service", it sounds
like "voilating standards". But even IAB says that it is just violating
assumptions but not standards. Maybe, I think your argument has more
implications which are not limited to these technical aspects. But,
technical difference could be much more clear than any difference of
meaning. If we ask wildcard service in terms of technical architecture, I
think we should ask to what extent such a violation of archtectural
assumptions could be allowed for registries. Which level of violating
architectural assumptions could be called as "changing a service"? If we
think in this way, "changing a service" could be called as one level of
"new service".


> So the real question is:
>
> Given the division of responisibilities between registries and
> registrars (an unfortunate division grown from the need to break a
> monopoly), what procedures should be in place to
> monitor/approve/counter changes in their service behaviour of
> registries?
>
> And for the future: Should we not give up the registry/registrar
> model? If there are 30, 60, 90 general, open TLDs, each run by a
> registry/registrar, the market can, finally, decide. I think the
> present problem is a child of this registry/registrar model to which
> ICANN so far has adhered (even for small sTLDs like .museum).

I agree to your idea that the present attempt to introduce additional
regulation procedure comes from the status quo of registry/registrar
model. Rather I am wondering if to argue wildcard service as changing a
service could be persuasive for your criticism. Because in arguing in your
way, you should suggest some procedure to confirm whether some business
action of registry/registrar is changing service or not.


> I make part of my living in a university by making researchers fill
> out lots of forms about how much they publish, what trips they make,
> and checking and controlling that. But I believe that it would be much
> more productive to give each of these researchers the money, and see
> after two or three years, whether they've come up with something that
> is a success.  Yes, I should be looking for another job. I am. But
> that is not the point. The point is that you cannot stiffle the
> internet by bureaucratic procedures like the ones that will surely
> emanate from this PDP. It is no more than creating jobs @icann.

I agree that new bureacratic procedure could be harm. But I don't think
that it will surely emanate from this PDP. It depends on what we do from
now on.


regards,

Chun

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------