Re: Future of IANA (and IETF)

[Jay at Iperdome.com]

Kent,

I was almost beginning to see light at the end of this 
never-ending tunnel.  Both Karl and Richard have responded 
to some of the more obvious differences to this post.  

I have a couple of more below:


At 05:01 PM 2/3/98 -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.  


Nothing in the GP is final.  If you have suggestions on how it 
can be improved, then please join us in an open debate with the
goal of a mutual solution to these questions.  This is known in
some circles as consensus building.

One of the overriding themes of the MOUvement is that NSI must
be destroyed at all costs . . . even to the point of fracturing 
the Internet.  Why is that?


>Furthermore, the GP does 
>not allow the CORE registrars a prayer of recovering their investment 
>in developing the registry software.  


Why is this an obligation of the GP?  Anyway, your suggestions 
here are as welcome as they are in any other area where the GP 
disagrees with your position.


>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).


Not only am I aware of this, but I have had conversations with
Emergent and the POC on using your software.  The response:
   It is your *intent* to make it publically available, but the
   current contract precludes Emergent from working with *any*
   other registries during and for a period of one year after 
   the conclusion of their contract.
Even though I have requested such, CORE/POC have not waived 
this restriction.


>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.


This is blatantly false . . . and it is certainly not
conducive to mending the fence and working towards a
mutual solution.  Frankly, I am disappointed with the
result of this exchange.


Regards,

Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.  
404-250-3242  http://www.iperdome.com