Re: Future of IANA (and IETF)

[Karl Denninger <karl at Mcs.Net>]

On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 05:01:39PM -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 06:59:05PM -0500, Jay at Iperdome.com wrote:
> >  
> > Well, I think we are making progress :-)
> > 
> > I agree with most of the criteria you specify,
> > as does the Green Paper.  Now, how do you suggest
> > we move to the next level?
> 
> The GP does not require cost-recovery for registries, and locks NSI
> into a nice profitable monopoly forever.  Furthermore, the GP does 
> not allow the CORE registrars a prayer of recovering their investment 
> in developing the registry software.  

Good.  CORE misled people about their ability to actually go online
with what they were selling.  I challenged CORE and the IAHC to insert their
TLDs into the root more than six months ago, and was met with stony silence.

Now its obvious WHY the TLDs weren't entered into the root - Postel didn't
have the authority to do so.  More importantly, BOTH HE AND CORE KNEW IT!

Anyone who paid CORE/IAHC their fees without HARD PROOF that they in fact
had the authority to do what they claimed should either (1) sue for fraud,
(2) is a fool, or (3) gambled and lost.  

Take your pick.

By the way, the only way CORE could have *possibly* recovered those
costs is by maintaining a monopoly on registration operations.  The FACTS,
Kent, are that CORE is now claiming that registrations at the *registry*
level will be $15/year/name, and is now demanding $2,000/month from EACH
registrar (all 88 of them) until they get online.

That's $176,000 a month - plus the $880,000 already collected.  That's quite
a hole in the ground to fill in, and the only way to accomplish it was and
is to have a stranglehold on the back-end registry business so you can
assess that $15 charge on *every domain registered*.  On top of that, every
REGISTRAR will be significantly in the hole when this thing goes online,
pretty much excluding a straight pass-through pricing model - unless, of
course, you like using greenbacks as fire-starters.

The problem is, I think I can do it for less.  Yes, with our TLDs you have
one back-end registry - but that's also true for CORE's TLDs.  Yes, you can
use any ISP, or even deal with the registry as an END USER (something CORE
prohibits) - if you want to.  Unlike CORE, which is passing through a
flat-fee of $15/name according to what I heard of their recent meetings
and discussions, we will offer quantity-of-business discounts for
registrars, and our *registrar* cost will almost certainly be lower 
than COREs *EVEN IN SMALL QUANTITIES*.

The reason CORE is running scared is that without its MONOPOLY over the
registry business, it can't possibly pay for its development effort.  Well
gee, since when are you guaranteed a rate of return in business?  That's
right - when you have a monopoly.

As for these operations being "non profit", yeah, right.  Emergent is doing
this development *AT COST*, right?  Wrong.  Registrars who are fraudulently
taking registrations for TLDs they don't even have a prior claim to (ie:
.WEB) aren't doing anything wrong either, correct?

Some set of ethics these people have...  Sheesh.

> Which, by the way, you may have missed this, has *always been intended*
> to be made publically available under some license like the GPL or the 
> BSD license, so that it would be available to any other registry that 
> wanted to use it (check the RFP).

Intent and action are two different things.

By the time CORE is done, the bill will likely be over $1.5M.  You're going
to *give that away*?  Your registrars know this?  They WILLINGLY signed up
for that?  They WILLINGLY gave you $10,000, and now $2k/month, knowing that
their advantage in the business will be ZERO the day the software is done
and released?  There is NO back-door deal and intent to keep this registry
business as a *monopoly* so you can recover those costs?  Your registrars
entered this line of business with FULL DISCLOSURE that you wanted to, 
intend to, and will have OTHER registries and software packages online, 
all in competition with the "clan of 88", and ALL on the back of the 
Clan's investment?

And you expect me to *believe* this?  Do you expect *anyone* to believe
this?  This is beyond incredulity - its well into the range of certifyable
insanity.

Better to back and talk to those registrars.  They don't seem to think
this is what they were sold AT ALL.  I have received solicitations by mail
from a couple of them - and that is NOT what they believe, or what they
are representing to the world.  They didn't develop those ideas in a vacuum
- they got the information from CORE.

> Clear evidence that, contrary to the misinformation that seems
> rampant in the anti-MoU camp, that the possibility of other shared
> registries has always been accepted, and even encouraged, by 
> supporters of the MoU.

That's a flat-out lie, even in your own view of the world - CORE has 
no intention of operating a shared REGISTRY and never did.

CORE intends to operate a shared REGISTRATION system - with ONE registry
authoritative for their TLDs.

Please describe how this differs AT ALL from any other private concern which
also does that job, and has open access to any registrar who wants it on
equal terms?

Leave the "profit" word out of it - if I can do the job for $10 in a
for-profit mode, while your non-profit requires $15, in which model
does the consumer get a better deal?

> -- 
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
> kent at songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/          | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost