Subject: whose interests?

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 98 15:40:14 GMT

> From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 1998 at 05:55:28AM -0500, Bob Allisat wrote:
> >  These bastards really believe
> >  it's okay to do what they're
> >  doing. I wonder how long this
> >  kind of shite would last if it
> >  were going on in a US Federal
> >  Agency? Can any one say "Grand
> >  Jury" and "Indictments Galore"?
>
> Ah -- I see -- you favor making IANA a US Federal Agency.  All clear
> now.
>
I hate to get into the little spat going on here again, but a couple of
major points that seem to have been ignored in the recent debate:

 1) I remind folks that there is no inalienable right (US Constitutional
    or otherwise) to a profit.

 2) The liability concerns about IANA do not appear to be based in sound
    legal theory.  While it is pretty much true that in the US anybody
    can sue anything else for pretty much any reason, in this case the
    suit will likely be dismissed, and may even be declared frivolous.

    As long as IANA is taking USG funds, strictly following the explicit
    terms of its grants, keeping its funding oversight agents informed
    as to its actions, and having its scope of discretion specified by
    an external oversight board (IAB), isn't IANA an "agent", and
    protected from lawsuits by the principle of sovereign immunity?

    I think the real problem occurs when we try to make IANA a private
    corporation.  We need to watch that very closely.  As long as IANA
    has strictly limited discretion, and has no tangible assets, we
    will probably be well protected from deep-pocket lawsuits.

    The US legal concerns merely indicate that IANA should be moved to a
    convenient jurisdiction outside the US.

 3) There are some pretty foolhardy expectations about barriers to entry
    to Internet operation as a registrar or registry.

    In various internet-drafts long before the IAHC, and posted as a
    contribution to the IAHC, I proposed that each registrar post a
    refundable "performance bond", to be used against the costs to clean
    up after its potential failure.  This is pretty common in other
    engineering contracts.  I proposed that the amount be $20,000, and
    the interest be used to fund IANA.

    This proposal would have been self-scaling, as the more folks that
    need IANA, the more funding IANA gets from the bonds.  At typical 5%
    money-market interest, 20-30 registrars would easily pay for the FTE
    clerk needed to maintain the root server database.

    Somehow, that migrated into a $10,000 application fee.  I'm not sure
    that was a good direction.  It certainly seems too small for the
    actual scope of becoming a registrar with global responsibilities!
    And unless the application fee has been carefully escrowed, the rest
    of us will end up footing the bill when any registrar fails.

    I've seen some recent comments that the bar should be lowered again.
    I am utterly opposed to lowering the requirements for a registrar.

    The fees and requirements currently set forth for registrars are
    unrealistically low compared to other areas of engineering and
    operations.  Heck, we needed to show several million liability
    insurance and pay a non-refundable $8,000+ just to _apply_ for
    co-location in the local CO, and that does not include the expense
    to compile engineering drawings and have the lawyers fill out the
    application.  And then, of course, the ILEC said there was no room
    in the CO....

    The barriers to entry should be set very high, and take into account
    the anticipated real costs, including the cost to the rest of us
    when one or more registrars fails, and when we have to defend
    against frivolous lawsuits.

 4) Moreover, there are some pretty unrealistic expectations that just
    about anybody should be able to participate in Internet operation.

    In earlier days, when the IETF was less than 5-6 years old, we had a
    self-appointed self-perpetuating IAB.  By dint of considerable
    effort, and assisted by a series of missteps by the IAB itself, we
    opened up the IAB selection process.  At first, my call for reform
    of the IAB was dismissed as "the ravings of a lunatic engineer"
    (Malamud, 1992).  I never did get around to that defamation suit :-)

    Now, the IAB has a simple Charter.  Part of that Charter is to setup
    "ad hoc bodies" to resolve issues.

    While we may not all agree that all the folks sitting on the IAB
    belong there, or that the folks appointed to the various ad hoc
    groups are the only ones or best suited for the job, in both cases
    there is no credible argument that the persons selected have not
    been a cut above a "random selection" of the populace at large.

    Of course, the deposed IAB fellows simply formed themselves a new
    organization, called the ISoc.  The self-appointed "permanent"
    members tainted the otherwise laudible objectives of that body.  And
    they were followed there and cleaned out, too.

    Again, while we may not all agree that all the folks sitting on the
    ISoc board belong there, or that the ISoc itself is "truly
    representative" of all Internet users, there does not appear any
    credible argument that some other group is more representative.

    The only realistic answer is to join the various existing
    organizational groups, get into the trenches, and build coalitions
    to make gradual positive steps in the desired direction.  Be
    prepared to take many years of effort and dedication.  That's what
    we did....

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:53:32 +0000 (GMT)

On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, William Allen Simpson wrote:

>... 

You protect yourself from deep-pocket lawsuits by having deep pockets
yourself.

>     convenient jurisdiction outside the US.

I think that this would be beyond foolish.  An attempt to move IANA
outside of the US would be provocative in the extreme.  
 
>     the interest be used to fund IANA.

If the registry-registrar relationship is set up properly, there is 
nothing to clean up after a registrar fails.  Nominet in the UK 
shows pretty much how it should be done.  Registrars are simply agents.
The essential contract is between the .UK registry (Nominet) and
registrants.  A registrar registers a name on behalf of a registrant.
Nominet enters the registration into their database; the registrar
owes money to Nominet.  If the registrar goes belly-up, Nominet 
loses some money, but the registration holds.

Nominet has over four hundred registrars.  I assume that some have
failed over the last year or two.  No one has even noticed.

>     actual scope of becoming a registrar with global responsibilities!

Registrars do NOT have global responsibilities unless they operate 
globally.  Nearly all registrars are local.

In the case of CORE as in the case of Nominet, the collapse of a 
registrar would have no effect at all on the operations of the
registry itself.

>     of us will end up footing the bill when any registrar fails.

I give up.  Why?  
 
>     I am utterly opposed to lowering the requirements for a registrar.

Why?  It is entirely practical for a Nominet registrar to operate from
an AOL account.  Other than an email account, what resources are needed?
 
>     against frivolous lawsuits.

Real world experience with Nominet suggests that these concerns are
simply imaginary.  Anyone can become a Nominet registrar by paying
a fee of about $800.  They have to have an email account.  These
very simple requirements have in practice been quite sufficient.

VBCnet is a Nominet registar.  The main skill involved is in filling
in Nominet's forms.  If you can do that, if you can send in PGP-signed
email, you can be a Nominet registrar.  Congratulations.

If VBCnet stopped being a Nominet registrar, this would have only a 
trivial effect on the customers whose names we have represented.  They
would have to apply to us to change their tags, so that someone else
could renew the registration or change contact information, etc.  If
we were out of business, they would go to Nominet directly and Nominet
would do it.

For this we should have to post a $20,000 bond?  

>     credible argument that some other group is more representative.

ISPs are far more representative of their customers than ISOC is.  
ISOC represents perhaps 0.01% of the users of the Internet.  But each
and every commercial user has an ISP or they would not be connected to 
the Internet.  Those users vote with their chequebooks: if they don't 
like an ISP's policies they go somewhere else. 

Few users of the Internet have ever even heard of ISOC.  While I have
no objections to ISOC's existence, claims that it is in some way
"representative" of Internet users are nonsensical.  

If 25,000 people formed something called the US Society and claimed that 
because their hearts were pure and because they were older than most
they represented the USA and should be the basis of its government, we
would all laugh.  With all due respect, why should we take ISOC more
seriously?

--
Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd           http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:15:42 -0500

>   against frivolous lawsuits.

 Real costs? Anyone can operate
 Name Service Provider with standard
 off-the-shelf equipment, freeware
 software and normal WWW connectivity.
 You have exagerated costs wildly out
 of proportion to reality.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:21:16 -0800

> You protect yourself from deep-pocket lawsuits by having deep pockets

Depend on deep pockets alone as a means of defending against lawsuits
is, to use your phrase, beyond foolish -- it's a short-sighted and 
strategically blind view.

Not to mention that it's ethically, well, bankrupt, to blithely waste
domain holders money like that.

In general there is *no* guaranteed defense against being sued, but
there are clearly several strategies to use, as Bill outlined:
minimize assets susceptible to judgement; adopt fair,
non-discriminatory, uniform policies; minimize the number of
discretionary decisions, and so on.  Any plan that doesn't consider 
all these and more is indeed beyond foolish.

[...]

> ISPs are far more representative of their customers than ISOC is.

My ISP doesn't represent me in any way, and in fact in many ways has
interests quite at odds with mine. 

> like an ISP's policies they go somewhere else. 

Oh sure.  By this reasoning people who run restaurants and grocery 
stores are more representative of consumers interests than a consumer 
watchdog group with only a few thousand members.

> "representative" of Internet users are nonsensical.

I see.  You are confused about the meaning of the word
"representative" -- it means "be a spokesman for", and does not carry
any particular significance as far as how the representative is
chosen, nor does it have any particular significance concerning the
population sizes involved, nor does it require the consent or approval
of the entity being represented -- my elected representative is my
elected representative whether I voted for him or not. 

The ISOC is self-selected from a very wide range of constituencies --
far wider than say EuroISPA.  It acts as a spokesman for that wide
range, and can legitimately claim to be representative. 

> would all laugh.
>  With all due respect, why should we take ISOC more seriously?

That's exactly what happened -- we called it a "constitutional
convention", or something like that, and went on from there.  Maybe
you could learn something this time around :-)

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
[email-masked]			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

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:23:25 -0500

>range, and can legitimately claim to be representative.

 What nonsense! ISOC is a mere
 drop in the ocean. The American
 or any other democratic type
 government is elected by millions
 of citizens. You are all trying
 to somehow supplant something
 that already exists. What silly
 bullshit. Talk about having to
 wake up and smell the coffee!
 Now it's your turn Kenty!

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 21:35:25 +0000

Kent and all,

> strategically blind view.

  Not compleatly kent.  If you are a For Profit the ability to protect yourself

as an orginization from suite of diffrent sorts becomes difficult at best.
Some
defensive stratigies can indeed be utilized, but the best is to have a good
well dunded defense fund and a execellent Corprate legal staff, with possibly
a good "Hired Gun" legal representitive avalible on retainer.

> all these and more is indeed beyond foolish.

  Oh, I agree compleatly!  But even with these stratigies in place and some
others,
a for profit company that is a registrar is still very exposed if they employ
a buisness attitude that is not to the benifit of the Domain Name holder.

> interests quite at odds with mine.

  Than change ISP's.

> watchdog group with only a few thousand members.

  Agreed!  But you are making a comparison that is not realistic here.

> elected representative whether I voted for him or not.

  Well the ISOC is not making this distinction according to their own
statments on their site.  They claim to represent some 40 million users
and stakeholders.

> range, and can legitimately claim to be representative.

  It is not my spokesman!  Nor any of the companies that our company
is involved with.  And in addition, they claim to represent some 40 million
users directly, or that is the implication.  I think this is the distinction
that Jim has made on this thread.

> you could learn something this time around :-)

  Ture.  And a good point.  But this is not realated to the claims of ths ISOC.

> Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 08:32:40 +0000 (GMT)

> strategically blind view.

A cheap shot, Kent.  You know perfectly well that I argue that IANA
should be operated as a neutral standards body and isolated from 
decisions with commercial consequences by legal firewalls.  But you
say that it must have no assets whereas I argue it should have 
substantial financial resources to defend itself from lawsuits.

> interests quite at odds with mine. 

I am afraid that this is exactly true of ISOC.  It doesn't represent
me in any way and has its own interests that have little to do with
those of Internet users.

I have no objections to ISOC.  As a loosely knit group of people with
an interest in the Internet, it's fine.  As a group that can claim to
speak with some degree of impartiality about the Internet ... OK. 
But if it wants to claim to be representative, it had better start
adopting the usual practices of other representative bodies: it needs
above all to seek the consent of those it wishes to represent.

> elected representative whether I voted for him or not. 

Your notion of representation is quite interesting and perhaps revealing. 
It would of course be applauded by authoritarians of all types: dictators,
oligarchs, religious zealots.  All claim to represent without consent,
to have a natural right to speak for the ignorant and unenlightened.

You claim that ISOC is representative not only without any form of 
consent from those being represented, not only without their knowledge
of their being represented, but even without their knowledge of the
possibility of their being represented.  This is simply ludicrous.

I can only suppose that this sort of reasoning is behind the 
assumption that the gTLD MOU did not need any support from the 
Internet community.

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council                                                 President
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 07:15:04 -0800

[...]
> possibility of their being represented.  This is simply ludicrous.

You seem to have a little trouble with this -- perhaps an example 
will help:  The American Kidney Foundation can *accurately* be said to 
represent Americans with Kidney disease, even though most such 
people are not members, do not vote in AKF elections, and indeed may 
not know that the AKF exists.  This is true for many thousands of 
advocacy groups of various kinds; ISOC is such a group.

> assumption that the gTLD MOU did not need any support from the 

No one has ever held such an assumption.

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 17:40:08 +0000 (GMT)

> advocacy groups of various kinds; ISOC is such a group.

I don't have much trouble with this at all.  You are using the word
"represent" in at least two different meanings, casually switching from 
one to another.  

If ISOC puts forward its opinions as representative (ie typical) of 
those of the people with considerable experience with the 
Internet, possibly professional experience, that's OK.

If ISOC puts itself forward as representing its 6,000 members, mostly
individuals, in an Internet governance model, that's fine.  I believe
that ISOC, though somewhat disorganized, has a reasonably
straightforward internal democratic process.

If ISOC puts forward its opinions as representative (ie typical) of
those of Internet users, that's highly questionable.  The typical
ISOC member is likely to be quite different from the average user 
of the Internet.

If ISOC puts itself forward as representing Internet users in an
Internet governance model, even thought those users have in nearly
all cases have never heard of ISOC, that is unacceptable.  In this
case "representative" clearly implies some sort of democratic 
process, which is in fact totally lacking.

If you say "I represent community X" to a politician, he assumes
some sort of process of consent.  Now democratic governments 
actively seek out representatives of various interest groups.  
The set of Internet users is such a group.  Governments cast about
for someone that can be said to represent them.  ISOC pops up,
eager to please.  Unfortunately ISOC simply does not represent
end users in the sense that politicians think that they do.

> No one has ever held such an assumption.

<sigh>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 11:26:27 -0800

>If ISOC puts forward its opinions as representative (ie typical) of 

Jim,

Perhaps it would be constructive to re-consider the utility of the current
exchange.  ISOC hasn't acted unilaterally with respect to DNS issues, so
that whatever perspective or representation ISOC staff and members might
feel they have, the relevant ACTIONS have been taken with the direct
participation of many others and with the review and comment of even more
people and groups.  That's the benefit of having the involvement of
substantially different communities.

A frequent tendency in the DNS debate has been to criticize one or another
structural or conceptual details rather than the actual content.  Things
really would be more productive if we focused on concrete deficiencies,
rather than theoretical ones.

So let's take it as a given that ISOC, INTA, WIPO, ITU, EuroISPA, USG etc.
are all morally corrupt and have no interest in the general welfare of the
world.  

That said, what are the specific problems with the details of the gTLD MoU
or with the EuroISPA proposal or the Green Paper, and what specific changes
will make them better?

d/
----------------------
Dave Crocker                                           +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                            fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA           www.brandenburg.com

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 11:54:29 -0800

> "represent" in at least two different meanings, casually switching from 

Nope.  I am not switching, and I'm not being casual in my meanings. 
The confusion is purely in your mind.  I never claimed ISOC was a
politically elected representative of "the internet community", and
indeed *nobody* has made such a claim -- such a claim would simply be
factually untrue.  To repeat: *nobody* has made such a claim; it's in 
*your* mind.

You are disingenuously assuming an interpretation of the word
"represent" that implies a factual untruth, and whooping "ludicrous". 
Well, big whoop.  This is known as the "straw man" fallacy -- a
technique you delight in, and one of the habits that makes debating
with you a frustrating waste of time. 

In fact, of course, (and as you yourself have said) there is no body
that represents the "interenet user" in the strict political sense you
are stuck on.   Such a body is not likely to exist in the 
foreseeable future.  

In the meantime, because the ISOC gets its membership from a large
number of countries, and because it represents a diverse set of
interests (from individual users to "internet insiders" to
corporations) it is the most representative body available --
certainly far more representative than an ISP trade association.

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:23:40 +0000 (GMT)

> substantially different communities.

We were discussing whether or not ISOC could claim to be representative of
end users or, as Sascha would have it, the Internet as an abstraction. 

> are all morally corrupt and have no interest in the general welfare of the

I don't believe that I claimed that any of these is corrupt.  I did say
that ISOC can certainly claim to speak for its 6,000 or so members but
cannot claim to represent end users in the conventional sense of the 
term.

Similarly the ITU largely represents the interests of telcos and 
therefore does not have the interests of ISPs or the Internet community
at heart.

> or with the EuroISPA proposal or the Green Paper, and what specific changes

I will address these issues separately, if you don't mind.

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 21:34:36 +0000 (GMT)

> are stuck on.   Such a body is not likely to exist in the 

I am glad that you agree with me, Kent. (Assuming that you mean
"Internet user".)
 
> certainly far more representative than an ISP trade association. 

Representative of what?  And representative in what sense?

There is a funny leap here that goes like this: ISOC is representative
of the Internet in that its collection of views are not untypical of
those of Internet users, professionals, etc.  Therefore, because 
governments are representative bodies and ISOC is a representative body, 
it should play a key role in Internet governance.  

Government in the late 20th century depends upon consent.  ISOC as
an institution does not have the consent of anything other than 
a tiny fraction (about 0.01%) of those involved in the Internet.

I have no complaints whatsoever about ISOC as a talking shop, as a
useful guide to ideas about the Internet, etc.  But ISOC has an
authority over the Internet?  That makes no sense at all.

Use another word for "representative" and spell out your reasoning 
and we might get somewhere.

---

From: Sascha Ignjatovic <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 00:54:27 +0100 (MET)

mr.dixon lets finish this topic hier at the ietf list

unfortunately there is no list at the moment where political aspects 
of the internet can be discussed  

there was once a idea to build up a internet policy task force 
but i am not competent and powerful inaf to initialize such 
(maybe the iab or isoc could think about such a posibility
 otherwise the political discussion would again turn back to the ietf list
 becouse there is no other place for it)

we "missuse" the ietf list therefor for political matters

so i supose we should move this discussion somewhere else and 
keep the ietf people out of our doubts who represents the internet 
and who not
 
thanks 
sascha
--------------------------
the main authority of isoc comes from its founding members who hapens to
be the people who hase developed the protocols and the basic
infrastructure for what we today know to be the internet 

isoc is accepted organisation from the basic internet organisations like 
ietf iab iana as to be the political representation to the outside world

ietf also not represents the internet users direct but represents the
internet as a technical system 

similar isoc dont represents direct all internet users but it represents
the internet in its globality becouse it takes care that the internet
develops healthy and in a specific direction 

becouse the isoc takes care for the internet in its entayerity it
represents in one sense all users becouse it is the leading global
internet organisation with no counterpart anywhere around 

there are regional international and specific purporse organisations  
but the isoc is the only global internet organisation with interests 
in ALL aspects of the internet 

it was the isoc/iana who hase take over the further development of the 
internet domain name system and hase also started the discussion and
brainstorming about the global internet selfgovernance and it is isoc who
defends the internet against take over from this or that groups who are
not competent to lead the internet at least not in specific direction

it is isoc who garants that the internet would stay a common good and be 
not controled by any entity with selfish interests and "slow brain"

your atempts to be more "competent" than the isoc are becomming nasty 
and you slowly disqualifiy you self to be taken seriously if you continue
to go this way

you are free to critisize and present you vuews but it takes you so much
energy to try to convince us that you are the top global internet
authority and that you are from now leading the global internet 

but you see the reality is slightly diferent

there are many people claiming to "be the best for the internet" and that
they determine where the internet should go

but this is not so easy

we should start to cooperate and stop to atack each other 

please find a way to get over your critics of the isoc and try to find
something useful in isoc if you can and try to cooperate with them if you
want 

you can keep your critics alaive but dont put them in the first place
otherwise it would be very dificult for us to find a way to communicate
with you becouse you are always seeing only the "bad" in us 

is there anything  positive you can see anywhere in the world 

if yes than please lets talk about that

i am complitely finisht becouse of monts and weks of just negative 
ataks from so many sides and from defending over and over again

if the only thing you are able to contribute is your critics than we thank
you for that  if you dont like us than leave us allone and go to some 
other organisation who you think represent more your interests

we are all trying our best for the good of the internet and instad to
suport us and work together with us you are atacking us over and over
again 

please try to find some positive contribution to the imens tasks of
building the global internet selfgovernance 

just to critisaizing isoc is not such a great contribution as you may
think

i am very sory to the ietf list

i would not comment on this subject hier any more

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 98 16:40 PST

> of the internet can be discussed  

try [email-masked]

---

From: Jim Dixon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 09:34:31 +0000 (GMT)

> mr.dixon lets finish this topic hier at the ietf list

OK :-)

---

From: Chris Rapier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:12:23 -0500 (EST)

> > mr.dixon lets finish this topic hier at the ietf list

Your RFC-fu is very good. Lets fight!

(bad joke, sorry, blame it on the bossa nova)

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 10:34:13 -0500

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 11:16:27 -0500, Bob Allisat said:

> For two years, at great expense to both WTV as an
> emmerging medium and FCN as a non-profit service
> I have dedicated vast amounts of time, money and
> effort to advocating their Domain Name Service
> Providers elements. .FCN will be operated for free
> and .WTV will pour all of it's resources to subsidize

As Bob Allisat discovers there's more to running a DNS (or any 
other business) out in the Real World than a Wintel machine
and a skinny bit-pipe...

So tell me Bob.. How long can you afford this low-cost
activity while expending vast amounts of time money and effort
in just selling the service, while returning resources to subsidize
things?  And more importantly, what happens to the people in .FCN
and .WTV if your service goes belly up?

There's a *reason* performance bonds were invented.  And no,
I don't  see $10K as exorbitant to get into the top-level registry
business.  Hell, I couldn't start up a local ISP for anywhere
near that amount of capital.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Bob Allisat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:08:38 -0500

Valdis wrote:
>As Bob Allisat discovers there's more to running a DNS (or
>any other business) out in the Real World than a Wintel
>machine and a skinny bit-pipe...
>

 For the record: the only problem
 I have encountered is in having
 to endlessly and relentlessly
 defend our right to the namespace.
 from monopolistic bitheads Our
 independant FCN registry pretty
 much runs itself. Anyone can
 operate a Domain Name Registry
 with dial-up access, standard
 WWW site set-ups and the help
 of a co-operative ISP.

 You IETF idiots have not only
 lied about technical standards
 you have wildly exagerated the
 level of expertise necessary
 as well. I suspect this will be
 just another reason for your
 immanent collective downfall.

 Fuck you you pompous pig Valdis
 and the rest of you too. Orlando
 my ass! I will return. And heavan
 help you all when I do.

TeleVirtually Yours,

Bob Allisat

http://www.wtv.net
http://www.fcn.net