-----Original Message-----
From:	Simon Hackett [SMTP:simon§internode.com.au]
Sent:	Friday, May 08, 1998 10:18 AM
To:	dns§iia.net.au; Dns listserver (E-mail)
Subject:	Re: DNS: Multiple Registrars in .asn.au, .edu.au, .gov.au

(Personal opinion only)

Oh come on.

Mark, may I suggest a principle which has worked since the zero point of
developments in the Internet, and which is likely to work well here:

	"Rough consensus and running code".

Michael is having a crack at producing an existence proof of something that
works, which might (or might not) be able to be used as a model of a
future, operative system, and which probably could become one, with patches
and changes added incrementally as OPERATIONAL issues make the requirements
to change more clear.

Unlike Adam Todd, he doesn't want $250,000 for it. 

Unlike ADNA, he's actually DOING SOMETHING.

The ADNA approach is to generate lots of pieces of paper, and lots of
pointed questions to anyone trying to disagree with ADNA, and has to date
produced zero in the way of substantive change in the environment, when
that change is desparately needed. Oh, actually, it has produced one minor
result - the preservation of the monopoly for Melbourne IT in com.au
delegations.That outcome is the result of zero actual change in the
landscape from ADNA's existence, and it is the one outcome which continued
lack of substantial results will perpetuate due to the close involvement of
Melbourne IT in the ADNA processes (which means Melbourne IT will not
participate in non-ADNA derived attempts to produce actual outcomes of
assistance to end users)

I would suggest that the educated reader may wish to compare and contrast
these two approaches against the evolution of the TCP/IP and OSI networking
protocol suites. And think about which one of those still matters now,
irrespective of the 'informed' rhetoric of 5-10 years ago regarding OSI.

Don't aim for day one perfection, bloodywell DO something. Some planning is
good, and some of the outputs of ADNA are great, but it's a *year* farther
on now and bugger all has really happened.

.. which is why I would like to thank Michael for getting off of his tail
and trying to achieve some useful results, from which we might all be able
to distill operational principles a little later.

Mark, in case you've forgotten, the entire core issue that ADNA is trying
to solve is the creation of a governance structure for (some) domain name
areas, but meanwhile each existing SLD is actually a benevolent
dictatorship, not a democracy, *including* ed.au, asn.au, net.au and
com.au. Neither you personally, nor ADNA, has *any* control over those
other domain spaces right now. None at all.

Stop trying to derail other useful efforts that are sorely needed as a
contrast to the ADNA process, and expend all of the question-asking energy
you have to making ADNA the model we can all be proud of. That would be a
better use of your time in this respect than throwing rocks at people who
are actually voting with their feet to make some progress that might help
us all to resolve some of your questions.

Cheers,
Simon

At 22:52 7/05/98 +1000, Mark Hughes wrote:
>Michael & Geoff,
>
>>I also call for expressions of interest to act as registrars within
>>ASN.AU. Interested parties should email me directly, with an intention
>>to add a small number of new registrars to ASN.AU by the end of
>>this month, in order to adequately test the software in a true
>>multi registrar environment.
>>
>>MM
>>
>>I have not discussed this with Michael yet, but I too
>>am willing to put the second level domains I look after
>>through Michael's process as well, and add a number
>>of registrars into these domain as well.
>>
>>(Thinking aloud) Perhaps the best move is to see this
>>asn.au proposal through, and by June, if this has worked
>>for asn.au in Michael's assessment, we can do the same
>>for a few more second level domains.
>>
>>Geoff
>
>May I ask a couple of questions about these plans to enable
>multiple Registrars to operate in .asn.au, .edu.au, .gov.au, etc?
>
>Question 1.
>Will there be any restrictions on who the registrars are?  ie, is it
>ok if one of the new Registrars is a shell company registered in 
>Sarajevo and beyond any Australian court jurisdiction?
>
>Question 2.
>If there are to be any restrictions on who can be a Registrar,
>how will this be enforced/applied?  ie, having rules without both 
>a process for administering them and sanctions for breach of
>the rules, is pointless.  What is the process, and what are the
>sanctions?
>
>Question 3.
>Will restrictions remain on what entities can get domain names in
>the .asn.au, ..edu.au, ..gov.au SLDs, or will registrars be allowed to
allocate
>domain names to any entities who wish to have them?  ie., if the
>Sarajevo based Registrar issues domain names in .edu.au to a
>foreign company that sells for $5 nicely framed certificates for PhD's
>from the non existent 'TransPacific Institute' is that OK?
>
>Question 4.
>If there are to be restrictions on what entities can get names in those
>SLDs, what will those restrictions be?
>
>Question 5.
>If there are restrictions on what entities can get names in those SLDs,
>what is the process for reviewing / changing those rules?
>
>Question 6.
>What is the process and what are the sanctions when a Registrar ignores
>the rules restricting what entities can get names in those SLDs?  Or do
>we just go 'tut tut that's not nice' and let them carry on registering names
>that don't meet the rules?
>
>Question 7.
>Will there be any restrictions on what names will be allocated in those SLDs,
>or is it first come first served.  ie, if a new University starts up in
the suburb of
>Monash, is it okay to issue monashuni.edu.au to it even though monash.edu.au
>is already issued to Monash University?
>
>Question 8.
>If there are restrictions on what names entities can get, what is the process
>for reviewing/changing those rules?
>
>Question 9.
>What is the process and what are the sanctions when a Registrar ignores
>the rules restricting what names can be allocated in those SLDs?  Or do
>we just go 'tut tut that's not nice' and let them carry on?
>
>Question 10.
>Is there any sort of code of practice that the new registrars in .asn.au,
>.edu.au, .gov.au have to follow?  What happens in event of complaints,
>or is it caveat emptor?  For example, is it ok for the new registrars to 
>generate additional income by selling their list of customers to direct
>mail merchants, etc?
>
>Hey folks, welcome to the issues we've been working thru for the
>commercial domains.
>
>There are two options:
>
>1.	Have no rules at all for a SLD - issue any and all names on FCFS
>basis to any entity that wants them.  This is basically the way the
>existing gTLDs and proposed new CORE gTLDs work.  Not a problem,
>unless you are of the opinion that fuck.edu.au, nazi.gov.au, etc
>perhaps shouldn't be approved in the .au namespace.
>
>2.	Have rules relating to what entities are entitled to names, and/ or rules
>about what names will/won't be approved.  In this second case you need
>more than just some rough as guts rules.
>
>* You need a public process by those rules could be changed.
>* You need objective (not subjective criteria) for evaluating those rules.
> Otherwise one Registrar will approve names that other ones reject.
>Eventually one Registrar will gain a reputation for 'looser'
interpretation of
> the rules and get more business.
>* You need a method of imposing sanctions on those who don't follow the
> rules.  Rules without sanctions to enforce them are pointless.
>
>Good luck folks, you're gonna need it.  Its easier to shut the stable door
>before the horse has bolted.  May I suggest you develop the equivalent
>of the ADNA draft 'Registrar Licence Conditions' and ADNA SLD specific
> draft policy documents for .asn.au, .edu.au, .gov.au BEFORE
>enabling multiple Registrars.
>
>Regards, Mark
>
>BTW, for those who are still fantasising that all company names and all
> registered business names are issued on a first come first served basis,
> I hate to give you the bad news, but it ain't so.  Not only are some
> names rejected, but some of the criteria used are totally subjective. 
> The week before last I went in to register a business name.  I filled
> out the form with my preferred name, took it to the counter and it
> was rejected on the grounds that is was 'too similar' to existing names.
>
>In theory, having the Federal and State governments approve Company
> Names and Business Names respectively using subjective criteria isn't
> a problem because they have monopolies in their own areas.  If they
> enabled competition by allowing all sorts of different entities
('Registrars')
> to handle the name approval, they'd have to either come up with totally
> objective criteria AND sanctions for those that didn't follow them, or
> eliminate the rules.
>
>Just like domain names, eh?
>
>Actually, because they use different people in the one department to
> interpret their rules, those governments only have a pseudo monopoly.
>  'Cause later on the same day, I took my business name form to a different
> person at the counter and the same name was approved.  That is what
> happens when you have multiple people trying to apply subjective criteria.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd
31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: simon§internode.com.au  Web: http://www.on.net
Phone: +61-8-8223-2999          Fax: +61-8-8223-1777