<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 3, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Mike Burns wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Kevin, answers inline.<br><br><br><blockquote type="cite">Really?<br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">You think that the DNS registry system that is in place today is a standard to which ARIN should aspire?<br></blockquote><br>I remember paying $100 for domain names from Network Solutions that I can get instantly now for $6.<br><br></div></blockquote>I remember domain names being free and based on first-come, first-served without regard to copyright</div><div>or trademark issues as they were not considered linked or intersecting namespaces. The privatization</div><div>of DNS with a for-profit entity (Network Solutions) was the first step down the slide into today's</div><div>degenerate chaos. The fact that modern degenerate chaos is less expensive than early degenerate</div><div>chaos does not change the fact that it is still degenerate chaos.</div><div><br></div><div>I remember requirements which prevented companies from polluting the namespace with every possible</div><div>or perceived possible random spelling, misspelling, and permutation of TLD they could think of to point</div><div>to the exact same RHS information.</div><div><br></div><div>I remember a civilized system without domain tasting and several other tools currently providing</div><div>tremendous assistance to spammers.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">You think that it will be better when IP addresses are managed in the various courts and by the various governments around the world? Do you realize that when government starts managing a resource they have to >pay for that management somehow? Guess how they will do that..<br></blockquote><br>I am not asking governments to manage resources, I am asking them to settle inevitable conflicts of law and custom. For example, witness the issues related to domain names and trademarks.<br>Those kinds of decisions require governments to make them. In the case of ip transfers, all I expect the government to treat them like the assets they are. The government inevitably deals with assets when they tax, for example, and when they handle them in divorce or bankruptcy cases, ahem, for example.<br><br></div></blockquote>If we had simply stuck to the idea that domain names are a separate namespace from trademarks</div><div>and are issued first-come-first-serve with limits on the number of domain names an organization</div><div>could possess (as used to be the case), those issues would not have really existed. It was when</div><div>ICANN brought WIPO into the process and started putting policies in place for the mapping of</div><div>trademarks onto domain names that this problem manifested itself and we began on the road</div><div>to the mess we have today.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">When the US government (not to mention others) gets in to play on this how far do you think we will be from a 'Department of Internet Commerce'? Do you really want to hasten that eventuality?<br></blockquote><br>I'm not clear on how removing justification requirements (or creating private registries) will lead to the Department of Internet Commerce. By all means, please understand that the very idea is antithetical to my thinking, so you will have to describe the process you are describing.<br><br></div></blockquote>You seem to be unclear on how removing community based policy from address administration</div><div>will result in a destabilization of the internet which would inevitably lead to greater regulation.</div><div>I suspect your "sell 'em all and let the market sort 'em out" ideology provides such a different</div><div>base frame of reference from my "central management of address resources in accordance</div><div>with community consensus based policies creates and preserves stability and rational</div><div>resource distribution" ideology that I'm not sure I know how to clarify it in a way that you would</div><div>be able to internalize.</div><div><br></div><div>The current internet is the result of the current system. I believe that it is working reasonably</div><div>well for a great many people.</div><div><br></div><div>Admittedly, we have no data on how your approach would affect number resource management</div><div>because nobody that I know of in history has ever attempted such an approach. IMHO, this is</div><div>because of the extreme risks associated with such an approach.</div><div><br></div><div>I can point to examples of where I think your philosophy has led in other non-number resource</div><div>environments:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Enron</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Worldcom</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Collateralized Mortgage Obligations</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Savings and Loans/Charles Keating</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Union Carbide/Bhopal, India</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>British Petroleum/Gulf of Mexico</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Exxon/Valdez, Alaska</div><div><br></div><div>and finally, your own example:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The current state of ICANN managed DNS structures</div><div><br></div><div>The fact that you consider this last example some sort of shining beacon of how things should</div><div>be (obviously I have a very different perspective) is, I believe, indicative of the chasm between</div><div>our perspectives which makes it difficult to find a common frame of reference for the discussion.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">If everyone would play nice and not be driven by greed or power then I would be inclined to agree with some of your propositions. Unfortunately we are living in a far from perfect world.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Kevin<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">qui totum vult totum perdit<br></blockquote><br>My concept of free markets are based on self-interest (greed, if you will).<br>I appealed to the idea of the Invisible Hand as an example of how self-interest leads to the greater good through free markets.<br>I don't know what part of my ideology relies on people playing nice, I think the opposite idea is usually attributed to my ideas.<br><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div></blockquote>The problem with free markets is that they rarely actually tie greed to the common good, but,</div><div>rather assume that the common good is the inevitable result of greed in the market. Most (all)</div><div>functional markets end up with rather large bodies of regulation that are constantly being</div><div>adapted to new and different mechanisms used to "game the system". Even with such bodies</div><div>of regulation, markets tend, over time, to become increasingly dysfunctional and more and more</div><div>disconnected from actually achieving any common good.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>