|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verisign's Threat to Infrastructure Stability
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Niels Bakker wrote: > Root server operators aren't the droids you're looking for. The net and > com TLDs are just that - TLDs, not the root zone; they're in the root > zone because they're TLDs but authority has been delegated away from the > root server operators. Yes, I think most understood from the start we're talking about root TLDs (top-level domains) and not root servers. And particular concern is not that TLDs operators maybe entities with high commercial interest in those TLDs - I have no problem with this for NEW tlds (BIZ, INFO, etc) if from the start its undertood how they would be operated and I can hae a choice to register domain there or not. The problem is with .COM, .NET, .ORG (and in part with .US) - these are original TLDs on which the net was built and the were setup by ARPANET/NSF -> US DOC before existance of ICANN and intrusted to be operated by NSI as one of core services of internet (like dns root server, etc). They were from the start services operated as public trust or similar and when ICANN was being setup - it was also setup as a kind of public trust non-commercial organiation in charge of internet core services (please, don't start debates here on how "non-commercial" and "public" they are). The arrangement was then made that separated then commercialized and highly profitable domain registrar business from core registry (only in charge of keeping actual tld registry functioning as service to registrars). Again you can see the idea of keeping core of services as separate public trust here while providing enough opportunities to run profitable business on top of it (remember $35/domain verisign been charging originally...) NSI is specifically required by the agreements they made to run registry services completely separate from registrar and this was the basis of agreement that allowed them to continue to be both registrar and registry for .com / .net / .org domains. And when charges of $6 were decided on for registry operations for each domain, NSI was specifically asked to calculate real cost of providing core registry services, they were trying to get away from answering this question even then but I do believe US DOC forced them to provide enough data to be able to calculate that $6 will be more then enough to keep registry business running. If this is not so now (which is seen by the fact that now NSI is trying to find ways to make additional revenue out of registry), then NSI would need to go to ICANN and DoC and show them that operating registry is not profitable for them and then they can negotiate new appropriate fee for such services or ICANN can invite other companiesto bid on providing the same services on the costs ICANN find acceptable or smaller and operated as public trust to the community. I personally think the best way to do is for ICANN to itself to setup two new non-commecial entities to operate .COM and .NET (.ORG is already with PIR) and require these entities to provide annual reports to ICANN (and to the public) on how much money is being spent on operations, etc. If they have a positive revenue from the services, this should go to special reserve (part of that used possibly for grants for internet research like NSF was doing originally) and amount of fees charged adjusted to more closely reflect the real cost of operations. Of course I'm just dreaming here talking about this perfect world order, etc... (especially considering we could not even get ICANN to provide complete details of their financial activites...). But in any case, the point is that just like .COM .NET were originally operated as public trust (and yes, I have couple domains I registered before I was being charged any fees for it and agreed to any commercial agreements now introduced by NSI, etc) this should be continued now and NSI should not be allowed to use their registry services for commercial activites going beyond what is necessary to keep the TLD registry running. Sorry about long letter... -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [email protected]
|