IP: an interchange on Afilias -- Old Internet Thinking RIP

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 13:12:57 +0900
To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: IP: an interchange on Afilias --  Old Internet  Thinking RIP

>  From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@cisco.com>
>>  Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
>>  Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
>>  To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>>  Subject: Re: IP: Old Internet Thinking RIP
>>
>>  Froomkin seems to have missed that the technical work for .org is going to
>  > be performed by Afilias, a well-established registry operator.
>  >


But information about Afilias' operational performance should be
available.  The 7 new tlds handed out in 2000 were intended as a
proof of concept, contracts included rigorous reporting requirements,
everything from technical performance compliance to marketing plans.
And that information should have been made public. Info at ICANNWatch
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=923&mode=&order=0>

Thanks,

Adam


>  > Ole
>>
>>
>>
>>  Ole J. Jacobsen
>>  Editor and Publisher
>>  The Internet Protocol Journal
>>  Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
>>  Tel: +1 408-527-8972
>>  GSM: +1 415-370-4628
>>  E-mail: ole@cisco.com
>>  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
>
>
>From: Carl Malamud <carl@media.org>
>
>
>Well ... we don't really know that Afilias is a well-established registry
>operator, do we?  Do they meet their SLAs?  Does their code conform with
>the EPP spec? How's internal performance?  Are security procedures really
>in place? 
>
>There are no public studies by reputable sources that have examined the
>technical performance of the Afilias registries and I certainly don't
>see any public facilities available that allow me to make that assessment.
>
>The paper trail stops.   I can't do technical due diligence and it is pretty
>clear that nobody doing the .org evaluations did any due diligence.  That
>may be appropriate for pitching a .com business plan or writing an OSI
>standard,
>but it isn't my understanding of how you run a public service on the
>Internet.
>
>
>Well ... we don't really know that Afilias is a well-established registry
>operator, do we?  Do they meet their SLAs?  Does their code conform with
>the EPP spec? How's internal performance?  Are security procedures really
>in place? 
>
>There are no public studies by reputable sources that have examined the
>technical performance of the Afilias registries and I certainly don't
>see any public facilities available that allow me to make that assessment.
>
>The paper trail stops.   I can't do technical due diligence and it is pretty
>clear that nobody doing the .org evaluations did any due diligence.  That
>may be appropriate for pitching a .com business plan or writing an
>OSI standard,
>but it isn't my understanding of how you run a public service on the Internet.
>
>  >
>  > ------ Forwarded Message
>  > From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@cisco.com>
>  > Reply-To: Ole Jacobsen <ole@cisco.com>
>  > Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
>  > To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>  > Subject: Re: IP: Old Internet Thinking RIP
>  >
>  > Froomkin seems to have missed that the technical work for .org is going to
>  > be performed by Afilias, a well-established registry operator.
>  >
>  > Ole
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Ole J. Jacobsen
>  > Editor and Publisher
>  > The Internet Protocol Journal
>  > Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems
>  > Tel: +1 408-527-8972
>  > GSM: +1 415-370-4628
>  > E-mail: ole@cisco.com
>  > URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>


-- 


------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/