Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Always fun when we discover that free entrepise means right to steel :-)

At 23:50 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>Even then, the cost of registrations was only established to cover the 
>cost of providing the registration services - a model that persists until 
>today.

How could it then drop from 50 to 9 in one day :-)
How bad it is they removed the General Accountant document from the ICANN site.

>Your perception sharply differs from mine. I'm not aware of any time that
>the Internet has been governed democratically - scratch that, I'm not aware
>of any time that the Internet has been governed.

hmmmm. everything is governed or drifting.

>The DNS != the Internet.
>The registration services provided by SRI, GSI, NSI, SAIC, Verisign etc. !=
>the DNS. The revenue generated from the registration of names has nothing to
>do with the operation of anything except the registration of names.

I just wander why there is any revenue over the name, and not only over the 
registration act. What is the renewal task which justifies the same amount 
of revenue as the registration.

> > I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public
> > service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same
> > as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly
>lesson
> > of English -).
>
>I view it slightly differently - there is a healthy tension between the
>public good and the needs of a free market.

To be a market there must be a product to sell. Names belongs to people.
The only service is registering.

>Fostering competition is a
>vastly different exercise than enforcing capitalism - the latter would
>likely require an army of soldiers, where the former likely requires an army
>of lawyers. I fully believe that the market created through the
>re-regulation processes that ICANN has implemented has furthered the public
>good.

So you agree that the market deos not result from the availability of a 
product or a service, but has been built by ICANN.

>Things could certainly be more streamlined and efficient, but that is
>where a healthy policy development process becomes key. Without that healthy
>process, the tension between the public good and the needs of the capitalist
>players can become imbalanced.

In this case it creates the imbalance. Would simply market forces apply I 
would propose free DNs and I would make a good business from it. We will do 
that in a near future hopefully but ICANN delayed the Internet and 
therefore the world's developpment; killed the new eceonomy momentum, 
created a lot of furstration round the world. I agree with your Senator who 
wants to have Joe Sims tried for War Crimes. All that for a few business to 
sell what belongs to all.

VRSN is a protected monopoly with a limited deregulation extending that 
monopoly to a few other ones. This is not a stable situation and you know 
it. What would be stable would have been - accrding to capitalism - to 
leave market forces applying. There would have been an unbalance: lower 
SAIC benefits over the NSI deal. No Registrars. A few more registries as 
small performing servcies. Much more TLDs and a growing new-economy after a 
far earlier self-deflation.

Built on the wind.










>                      -rwr
>
>
>
>
>Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
>
>"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
>thought which they seldom use."
>  - Soren Kierkegaard
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
>To: <ga@dnso.org>
>Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 3:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later
>
>
> > On 17:32 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> > >It has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.
> >
> > This would be a good point enough should the domain name had not be
> > confused with the mnemonic. You perfectly know that everyone around the
> > world first resolves a mnemonic into mnemonic.com as a domain name.
> >
> > That would be a good point should that confusion did not result from
> > ICANN's policy though the lack of new TLDs.
> >
> >
> > Now, Ross, what is the capitalism to do with this? I have allways been
> > explained that Internet was an academic network of military origin and
>that
> > names had a rate helping to support the cost of managing and developping
> > the network?  I certainly observed that bluntly a fee became a discounted
> > price but if was after I started using that domain names of mine. I
> > genuinely believed when I started that Internet was democraticaly managed
> > (I even rad the bylaws of ICANN) and that $100/two years was the real cost
> > of the Internet operations under the control of the USG.
> >
> > I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public
> > service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same
> > as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly
>lesson
> > of English -).
> >
> > But may I ask a question? What was the capital investment?
> > If you go on the ICANN site, you will find the IANA agreement where the
>USG
> > sells the IANA function to ICAN for less than $ 10.000. Means that I have
> > paid 7 times the price Internets. Even by tough capitalistic standard it
> > would be a good deal for the seller :-)
> >
> > As an US tax payer, are not surprised that the USG Might sell for such a
> > low price something generating so much revenue. I really think WRSN could
> > thank Mr. DeWitt from Eindhoven, who I suppose never got a cent for having
> > initially coined "com".
> > jfc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>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
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 09/10/02