NSI SAYS FCC SHOULD ASSUME INTERNET REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS

Tue Apr 22 15:07:06 UTC 1997

Keep the agencies of the United States government out of this.

This sounds like NSI is trying to wiggle out of participation in
CORE. NSI does not like a solution that provides no guarantee that
NSI will be one of the new registries.

This is Washington politics - SNAFU and FUD.

Operators, read the documentation and decide for yourself.

http://www.iahc.org/

The IETF COREdb working group is defining a technical solution to
"too much bureaucracy."

Who thinks the FCC can be less burocratic than a shared database?
Do I see any hands?

If you agree with the IAHC solution then show your support 
and advocate that your company sign the MoU.

--- On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:50:18 -0700  "Charles R. Hoynowski" <charles at etak.com> wrote:

> NSI SAYS FCC SHOULD ASSUME INTERNET REGISTRATION FUNCTIONS
> Network Solutions Inc., which currently registers all top-level domain
> names under contract to the National Science Foundation, has suggested that
> the Federal Communications Commission temporarily assume that function
> until an international legal authority can be created to manage the system.
> The transition period would allow for public comment on the plan in order
> to incorporate any new processes or structures deemed necessary.  The plan
> is in contrast to an earlier proposal announced by the Internet
> International Ad Hoc Commission to create seven new shard generic top-level
> domains to be administered by 28 new registrars.  NSI's president says the
> IAHC plan risks Internet instability, creates "too much bureaucracy," and
> will contribute to increased domain name legal disputes.  (BNA Daily Report
> for Executives 16 Apr 97)

---------------End of Original Message-----------------

--
From:   Joseph T. Klein, Titania Corporation http://www.titania.net
E-mail: jtk at titania.net  Sent:   10:07:06 CST/CDT 04/22/97

If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology,
vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction
and march collectively into the future.
                      -- http://info.isoc.org/internet-history/#Future