Re: [ga-roots] TLD's

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 21 May 2001, at 8:22, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Dassa wrote:
> >
> > > |> -----Original Message-----
> > > |> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> > > |> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:59 AM
> > > |> To: 'dassa@dhs.org'; ga-roots@dnso.org
> 
> > > |> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's
> >   I agree that the Internet itself is a public entity.  However it is
> >   made up
> > of private enterprises.  Like all enterprises, they develop, change, and
> > evolve.
> >
> > >  As such do private TLD's have any place on it, rather than
> > > being adjacent to it?
> >
> >   Yes.  ANd private TLD's now exist, and always have.  The difference
> > now is that sense the DOC/NTIA has decided to give .COM to
> > Verisign/NSI in perpetuity, TLD's remain in the hands of a few
> > individuals control.  Soon this will be true of .ORG, and .NET in 2005.
> >
> 
> Are there four different interests here,
> 
> 1.    ICANN
> 2.    Users of the net that ICANN controls
> 3.    TLDA
> 4.    Users of the net that the TLDA would control?

How do you arrive at number 4?  In what way would the TLDA, as a 
trade association, control users?  Operation of a tld is in the interests of 
users and registrants, so if anything, it should help, not control users.
Users are the customers of TLDs, so if a TLD holder is smart, it will do 
as much as possible to attract them, protect them and provide service.

> 
> I think the answer is a very simple yes and no.  But it does appear to be
> factionalizing like this.  So we ask who will prevail if these interests go
> head to head?  Short term clearly ICANN, long term clearly the users.
> 
> It would appear that both of these organizations "should" be catering to
> the users, and that neither is and so those of us in alliance with the
> users should work to change or replace them both.  As strange as it may
> seem it would appear that at this time ICANN is doing far more to create a
> situation where users are represented than is the TLDA.  One can even argue
> that the TLDA is even helping hinder stakeholder representativeness in
> ICANN. (specific examples are omitted as this list does not allow, specific
> criticism).

TLD holders are just one group, a very important one, of stakeholders 
who are being ignored.  From my perspective, one important goal is to 
be able to provide what registrants need and want.   Why bother to have 
a service business if it is hamstrung?  There is a need for the TLDA and 
doing everything you can to discredit the effort before it is even begun 
will not help the Internet or the stakeholders.

I just love it when detractors work to derail efforts that are started for the 
benefit of stakeholders without knowing much of anything about it or 
waiting to see where it could benefit.  

If you destroy the industry, what will be left?  A couple of monopolies 
who care only for the special interests with no input from any other 
stakeholders and those who might, in retaliation, continue to introduce 
colliders wihtout any organization or standards.  Is that what you prefer?

Cooperation among stakeholder organizations would work.  It seems 
that there are factions who work very hard to prevent any cooperation, 
so we have fights, destruction and chaos.

The purpose of the TLDA is a cooperative effort, not a destructive one.

Leah

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


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