Re: [ga] Board Decisions

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

Hallo David,

just to let you know that you have supporters.

siegfried

On 15 Mar 01, at 23:41, DPF wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100, you wrote:
> 
> >In Melbourne, I saw two separate presentations made by Joe Sims.  In both of
> >these Joe describes both Plans and outlined their advantages and disadvantages
> >to ICANN and the community.   Schlavos separately outlined the advantages to
> >Verisign of Plan B.
> 
> With all respect to Mr Sims he negotiated the proposal and has
> vehemently defended it on the Names Council list and may not be the
> most neutral source of advice on the pros and cons.  
> 
> >Some of the issues included that it would bring Verisign into line with all of
> >the new registries.  
> 
> This is mentioned all the time but rarely why this is at all
> beneficial to the Internet community except the new contract has less
> for clever lawyers to play around with.
> 
> The new registries are a concept only at this stage while *.com has
> 65% of the world's domain names.
> 
> >It would also separate the .com, .net and .org agreements.
> >Dates were also shortened and caps removed.  Verisign agreed to provide $5
> >million to the new .org operator and $200 million in R&D type funding.  
> 
> Yep and this is all good stuff.  The question is whether it outweighs
> the bad stuff.
> 
> >There's
> >also the changes to the registry-registrar separation.
> 
> Which many Registrars are saying would be very bad it seems.
> 
> >My feeling was that the most important consideration was that Verisign would
> >have a "presumptive right" to renew .com.  Thus if Verisign managed the TLD
> >properly, it would be expected for them to continue with .com in perpetuity.
> 
> Yep.  And this removes a huge competitive pressure on Verisign not
> just to be"okay" but to be "the best".
> 
> >I would also say that some of the new arrangements were imposed by ICANN staff
> >(rather than requested by Verisign) as a trade-off for this presumptive right to
> >renew.  This includes the separation into three agreements and the loss of .org
> >and the possible loss of .net.
> 
> Oh of course.  Unless one was a moron one would not say oh you can
> keep the registrar business and as we are felling cheerful you can
> also keep *.com for all eternity and we don't want anything in return.
> The question for me is whether the tradeoffs make up for it and I
> can't see that they even come close.
> 
> >Personally I believe that .com will be less valuable than people might think
> >given the introduction of new TLDs.  However, except for .biz, they are not very
> >attractive.  And even .biz is not general purpose because of its apparent focus
> >on "business" operations.
> 
> I partly agree with you but my worry is that we are signing away *.com
> for ever before we even have any inkling of how successful *.biz and
> other competing TLDs may be.  I would be far less worried by this
> proposal if it came at a stage when the new TLDS had been up and
> operating for 6 - 12 months.
> 
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 



--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html