Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Jefsey, yo have again outdone yourself.  Excellent and accurate
argument, in fact I would call it flawless.  Others of course will
differ on that statement.  >;)

  Indeed as you rightly point out.  .COM is essentially dead, it just
hasn't laid down yet.  >:) .NET will soon also die,
The reasons you nicely brought together here are the same ones
made some time ago now, but you did a much better
job here of abbreviating them.  Well done!

  ICANN has been from the beginning trying to map the DNS
and the Internet into the brick and mortar world of commerce
and other business/trade exchange.  The UDRP was ICANN's
first attempt at doing that.  It has essentially failed or is failing,
depending on how carefully and how long you have been following
events.  The Registry and registrar contracts are yet another example,
as has been discussed a number of time now, is the second mistake
that has cost the stakeholders/users and investors, literally billions
of $$ thus far,
and more to follow.

  The fact that ICANN's real lack of a truly consensus (Measured)
process has never really been in place, adds more fuel to this now
raging fire.  It must be extinguished soon or the damage will be
even more severe.

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

>    Dear Peter,
> the entire domain name issue is contradictory due to the ACPA and IP
> people
> misunderstanding the nature of the domain name. I went into the same
> problem at the IETF with the multinational and Babel Names.
>
> There are actually three adressing layers:
> 1. hardware: the IP address
> 2. software: the domain name reoslving into the IP address
> 3. brainware: the mnemonic resolving in people's mind to .com or for
> locall
> name to the local ccTLD.
>
> Obviously famous marks are brainware and mnemonic. Not understanding
> the
> difference between an alphanumeric pointer (domain name) and an
> intuitive
> feeling (human reaction to a famous mark) created the problem. ccTLDs
> wanting to capitalize on people's legitimacy and benefiting frolm a
> mnemonic resolution into their ccTLD were de facto more brainware
> oriented
> and more real. The LIC legitimacy makes sense (however how many ccTLD
> really relate with their @large? I would be happy some really would)
>
> gTLDs cannot do the same.
>
> 1. they are blocked by ACPA which is based upon the idea that layer 3
> does
> not exist
> 2. they suvive on that. Otherwise they would not have sold a single
> .biz or
> .info.
> 3. to help maintaining that error, ICANN helped .com grow into a too
> large
> community without unity. Un manageable. Verisign would(will) die from
> it.
>
> Now, .info could operate as the specialized TLD Postel wanted.
> Com and net are beyond recovery.
>
> Competition is over the mnemonic resolution. Which TLD are the people
> to
> associate to a mnemonic?
> By "default" they add ".com". Find a way to confuse them, you rebuild
> the
> market.
>
>
> jfc
>
>
>
> On 00:05 30/09/02, Peter Dengate Thrush said:
>
> >comments below
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>Neuman, Jeff
> >To: <mailto:'ga@dnso.org'>'ga@dnso.org'
> >Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:24 AM
> >Subject: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> >This is from the gTLD Constituency and has been sent to the ERC
> >Committee.  I know this should spark some interesting debate.
> >
> >Subject: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> >
> > >The Registry Constituency has been a vocal supporter of reform from
> its
> > inception.  In fact, many of the Registries joined in a letter to
> the
> > Department of Commerce expressing our support for the reform
> > efforts.  One of the main reasons that we supported ICANN reform
> from the
> > beginning was because of the perceived inefficiencies of the current
>
> > DNSO. The result of such inefficiencies has led those parties that
> have
> > contracts with ICANN (namely, the gTLD Registries and gTLD
> Registrars) to
> > become disenfranchised with the current policy development process.
> >Jeff - there's some irony in this. Its not the inefficiency of the
> DNSO
> >which you were objecting to, it seems, buts its efficiency in
> >"disenfranchising" you and the registrars.
> >
> > >Too often, political games have been played to overshadow the
> voices of
> > the Registries and the Registrars in the current process, even
> though it
> > is recognized that most, if not all, of the proposed policies affect
> the
> > contracted parties in a way that is much different than those
> parties
> > that are not under contract with ICANN. Unfortunately, as the ERC
> process
> > has evolved, the inefficiencies of the current DNSO appear to be
> re-emerging.
> >
> >Again, you describe a political result you don't like as an
> "inefficiency".
> >
> > >As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally
> affected.
> >
> > >The registrars and registries are contractually bound to comply
> with any
> > ICANN consensus policies.  New or changed policies can have a
> significant
> > financial impact on their operations.  We believe that the
> protection of
> > registrar and registry rights as contracting parties within the
> proposed
> > GNSO is an important and essential safeguard.
> >
> >Here is where your argument becomes more difficult for me to follow.
> You
> >seem to be elevating the contract between you/registrars and ICANN to
> a
> >different level of political importance than the contract beteen a
> >registrant and a registrar. Why?
> >
> >Given that all the funding flows from registrants to registrars, that
> the
> >conditions of end use, and that much of the ICANN policy discussion
> is
> >about the impact on users of names and address procedures, why isn't
> the
> >view of the vast numbers of registrants significantly more important
> than
> >the views of the providers??
> >
> >Why shoudn't the g registries be obliged to adopt at least a little
> of the
> >ethos (which we regard as contractually binding via RFC 1591, as well
> as
> >socially appropriate) binding the cc registries, that the registry
> has to
> >serve the community its provided to serve? Why shouldn't the
> structure
> >require the registries and registrars to sit around the table with
> their
> >user community?
> >
> >If the conditions of the user community result in a business which is
>
> >unprofitable, or unsuited, those entities running them can take a
> busines
> >decision to leave that business. If, on the other hand, the
> conditions
> >imposed by registries and registrars are unsuitable for users, where
> can
> >they go?
> >
> >My personal preference would be to ensure that users rights should be
> more
> >carefully protected that those of registries and registrars,
> precisely
> >because they are typically small, individual, disparate and the
> economic
> >effect per person makes any issue uneconomic to fight. OTOH
> registries and
> >registrars have well-known economic and political advantages.
> >
> >You blur this issue to speak of "contracting parties" while ignoring
> the
> >end user contracts.
> >
> >There is a need to balance the undoubted importance of successful and
>
> >innovative registries and registrars, competing in an economic battle
> for
> >business, with the needs of users.  Considerable clarity of thinking
> is
> >need to ensure all interests are kept in balance.
> >
> >
> >
> >regards
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/02
>
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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