[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Owen DeLong]

On May 14, 2011, at 12:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Paul,
> Whatever the problems that exist in DNS, they are problems that are both solvable and can be reasonably expected from scaling up a domain name distribution system thousands of times, from a few hundred thousand domains to a multiple hundreds of millions. Let's not also recall that the massive reduction in price and massive increase in scale and expansion would be considered a net gain by any unbiased observer. 

Actually, I'd rather pay $30-50/year for my domain names and have a system that wasn't tied up in WIPO's idea of trademark mapping,
didn't have the spammer coefficient and toxic polluter models that are present in todays registry structures, and had a higher level
of due diligence.

I don't think that is a particularly biased perspective. I'll also note that until they are free, there is not even an equal price to where
I started, let alone a massive reduction.

Much of the massive expansion is a net gain. Much of it is not.

> 
> The proper benchmark for comparison of DNS and IP address reform is not your romantic, idealized notions of a communitarian utopia, but the actual system of monopoly and unprofessional and unscalable institutions that existed 15 years ago. 

We can agree to disagree here. Prior to the awarding of the contract to NSI, I got very good service from SRI.

> 
> Let's return then to 1996 and the NSI monopoly, which, as I recall, was something that frustrated a certain Mr. Vixie so much that he was ready to split the root. 

Let's return, instead, to the SRI days since I believe that to be a vastly superior comparison.

> 
> Are you proposing that we should not have started charging fees for a domain name registration? 

I'm not sure whether this improved things or not. I do know that abandoning the one-org-one-domain structure
and adding trademarks to the mix in place of first-come-first-serve was not an improvement.

> Are you proposing that we should not have separated registries from registrars, and therefore continue the monopoly of one registry? 

Again, I'm uncertain. However, I'm not sure that's a significant factor one way or the other. The problem was the elimination of
a global set of policies based on one-org-one-domain and first-come-first-served allocations of domain names that were
desired by more than one person. The involvement of WIPO and overloading of the DNS namespace with trademark issues
further degraded the situation.

> Are you suggesting that the backlogs and shortages that occurred under the monopoly were better than things are now? 

Care to explain that allegation? The longest I ever waited on a request from NSI was 5-7 days in the very early days before
they implemented automation. With SRI, it was more like 1-3 days. I'm not sure what you mean by a shortage. We have more
shortages now by any definition I could apply to that term due to the low price and ease of domain squatting.

> Are you suggesting that the process of giving users online and direct control of their accounts was not a huge win for users?

I think this would have happened even if SRI was still in control. I think that was the inevitable progress of automation more
than it relates to any of the changes you mention above.

> Are you proposing that registries should not have relaxed their policies to allow individuals to register the names they want with fewer restrictions?

Absolutely!!

> Are you suggesting that the many country code TLDs that liberalized their policies in imitation of the success of gTLDs should not have done so? 

The ccTLDs were always subject to whatever policies the applicable nation's government chose to apply to them, so, I really
don't see that as part of the discussion.

> Are you proposing that we should not have had a formal, governmentally-mediated reform/privatization process and instead left things in the henads of one man and his personal network of friends and colleagues to set policy for the whole DNS? 

I don't really agree with your characterization of the SRI and NSI operated NICs, but, even if I did,
I would say that he and his friends did a better job of administering it in the interest of the global community than this government
mediated system has.


Owen

> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Paul Vixie
>> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:12 AM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois
>> Accurate
>> 
>> mike at nationwideinc.com ("Mike Burns") writes:
>> 
>>> From the article:
>>> 
>>> "ICANN requires registrars to enforce the accuracy of their customers'
>>> Whois records, and the leading registrars are often quite strict about
>>> complying with this rule."
>>> 
>>> So if ICANN already requires this and fails to police it, why do you
>>> assume that ICANN would police their own records if private registrars
>>> did not exist?
>> 
>> i make no claim nor ever meant to imply that icann should take action
>> with respect to number resource whois.  i was answering your statement
>> that the dns private market is working.  my assertion is that the dns
>> private market as it is currently does not disincentivise sociopathic
>> behaviour.  at scale (and with a lot of money at stake) such behaviour
>> becomes the norm unless opposed by some regime or force.  for examples,
>> the tradeoff between accurate whois and making a lot of money, or the
>> tradeoff between conserving routing table slots and making a lot of
>> money, are decisions that the whole community or their representatives
>> would make differently than would most individuals.
>> 
>> the short version is, i don't think the private dns market is your best
>> or most shining example of what to hope for from a private numbering
>> resource market.  i don't think Garda Sichana's Michael Moran would
>> think so either (referring to the "theregister" URL included below for
>> reference.)
>> 
>> re:
>> 
>>> mike at nationwideinc.com ("Mike Burns") writes:
>>> 
>>>> As far as the DNS private market goes, I don't see the problem with
>> it.
>>> 
>>> From: "Paul Vixie" <vixie at vix.com>
>>> 
>>>> see
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/17/child_abuse_cop_slams_icann/
>>>> with raw data at <http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22219>.
>>>> 
>>>> internet resource holders (whether names or numbers) will *not* show
>>>> more accountability than is required of them by the rest of us.
>> --
>> Paul Vixie
>> KI6YSY
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.