Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ga] Reply comments to the gTLD Comments on .org

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Eric and all,

  I think and I have little doubt that our [INEGroup]  members would
predominantly agree with me that parts of both Eric and Milton's
thoughts/comments below.  For instance the incongruency to which
I believe that Eric is concerned about would be related to the
historic disjointed actions of the ICANN BoD with respect to
the introduction of competition as required in the White Paper
as it relates to NSI/Verisign for .COM, .NET, and .ORG in
particular with the divestiture of .NET and .ORG as the
"Agreement/Deal", that the ICANN BoD reached or forced
upon the stakeholder community in our names without our
approval, not to mention reasonable input upon.  In such,
giving NSI/Verisign a lock hold on .COM for some $$ and
turn over of .ORG and .Net (to be determined later) it would
seem obvious even to the causal observer that the ICANN BoD
was more interested in the $5m in potential financial concession than
in the best interests of the stakeholders.  Hence the incongruency
to which Eric seems concerned about.

  With respect to the actual introduction of competition in the
Domain Name industry, the comments/concerns from Milton
are well founded and grounded in the historical decision
practice thus far from the ICANN BoD, which still does not
reflect the requirements of the White Paper and the MoU,
in that keep costs of registration for a Domain Name low
the trade off of lack of competition was seeded.  That of
course is utter folly in the mid to long term, and now
seems a poor decision in the divestiture "Deal" that
the ICANN BoD made, and was warned of in advance.
The ICANN BoD has obviously ignored the implications,
or has acted unwisely, in respect to overall historic
competition policy that there is to draw upon.  It is also
a now growing historical fact, with the recent WLS
proposal from Verisign, that keeping costs low for
a created monopoly such a Verisign is unlikely.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear fine sir;
>
> Please elaborate on this seemingly incongruent statement.
>
> I guess I was mistaken in my understanding that we were looking for
> divestiture at any cost.
> Is it your contention that the goal has devolved to the lowest common
> denominator of cost?
> I agree with your telecom analogy, but am troubled by your fatalistic
> conclusions (?).
>
> How do you suggest we move forward taking in your, Neumans' and Jeffs'
> input.
>
> Your opinion is always valued here, please go out on a practical limb and
> give some modicum of advise.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > <with major snippage>
> >
> > That being said, when the Board makes its final selection among
> > applicants, it seems to me to be impossible for the Board to ignore
> > questions of competition policy. The whole process of removing
> > control of dot org from Verisign was motivated by a desire
> > to increase the number of players in the market and to reduce
> > Verisign's dominance of the registry marketplace. If we were
> > concerned exclusively with who was the low-cost provider
> > we might not need to divest .org at all.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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