Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

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

Stepan and all,

Stefan Probst wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> Or in other words: I still fail to understand, why registrations in the
> root have to be handled that *much* differently than those in the gTLDs..

  I don't even think they need to be that difficult in that TLD's themselves
are only entered once in the Legacy/USG Roots....

>
>
> Regarding fees:
> I think a fixed amount per SLD is ok.
> There will be TLDs, which cover a broad spectrum with millions of
> financially wealthy registrants, but I see no reason, why there shouldn't
> be also smaller ones, or ones which cater for parts of the world where
> people are not as rich as in the US.

  Exactly!  But the ICANN BoD and staff came up with a scheme by which
requiring US $50k for each application (Non-refundable none the less),
to generate much needed funding for ICANN.  Disgusting!

>
>
> Why should .museum or .coop or .humanrights pay same much like .biz or .travel?
> Or .hmong (a tribe in Vietnam)(latter TLD preferably registered in UTF-8)?

  No reason at all...  But of course there are many excuses for doing so....

>

>
>
> Stefan
>
> At 19:22 17.06.01 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> -------------------------
> >Chris and all,
> >
> >NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, look. I am not suggesting every TLD in every root should be included by
> > > ICANN. What I am saying is that ICANN has not set any true standards for
> > > what a TLD operator must work by. They made personal judgement calls in the
> > > selection process that had nothing to do with any standard criteria for
> > > selection.
> >
> >   I also agree that not every TLD suggested should be included either in
> >the Legacy/USG roots.  I also agree that as set of minimum standards
> >need to be set for how and what qualifies ANY potential TLD registry
> >can have it's proposed TLD entered into the Legacy/USG roots, and
> >that those decisions and standards should be agreed upon and determined
> >by the participating stakeholders as is outlined in the White Paper and
> >MoU.  This is where the ICANN BoD and Staff have failed to meet
> >their mandate in their contractual obligations with the DOC/NTIA.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > First create exact standards for which a TLD Operator would need to
> > meet for
> > > inclusion.
> >
> >   Yes!  And these exact standards should be minimum and determined by
> >ANY and ALL participating Stakeholders right here in the DNSO as is
> >mandated in the ICANN Bylaws...  This is not being done presently...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > They give a grace perios for dot biz for IP interests to get their domains
> > > before anyone else. Why not set up a time period for all tld owners who
> > > currently hold tlds in other roots but wish to be included in the legacy
> > > root to meet the set standards.
> >
> >   Yes, exactly!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the reason is then Tucows and other Companies that are let's say
> > > ICANN-Friendly could not then duplicate those tlds that met the standards
> > > for inclusion.
> >
> >   Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > There does not need to be a $50,000 fee to be qualified for inclusion.
> >
> >   Absolutely right.  A processing fee of much less should be sufficient.
> >And a lottery process to determine whom and what TLD's are added to the
> >Legacy/USG roots is not a fair and open process...
> >
> > > Let
> > > $1 per domain name registration in the included tlds fund ICANN entirely.
> > > Then ICANN won't have to worry about funding and if they are beholden to
> > > anyone for their finances it would be the users who register domain names.
> >
> >   This could be used as a method, but I would prefer a fixed processing
> >fee that is paid one time bu the potential registry.  As ICANN is a
> >non-profit 501 c(3) corp. you method here Chris is problematic...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't care what any techie says. This is not a technical issue except
> > > where maybe the IETF help set the technical requirements for operating a
> > > TLD. It is a social and political issue that ICANN needs to resolve and
> > this
> > > is NOT difficult to do.
> >
> >  Technopolitics seems to to have driven the ICANN BOD and staff.  Tail
> >wagging the dog sort of thing...  The IETF is intertwined in this.  As such
> >it's judgments are being increasingly questions and for good reason...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The users are more than happy to fund ICANN. We don't need the IP interests
> > > or the Corporate money. Take the number of domains filed in one year x $1
> > > and ICANN has more than enough to give itself those nice fat raises.
> >
> >   This is where I think you are mistaken.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 28,869,097 domains registered as of March 2001. That is a lot of money. It
> > > is not a tax no matter how one might try to label it. I think organizations
> > > like the IDNO and others would endorse the plan.
> >
> >   I think you may be a bit premature here...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This gives current holders of tlds their chance to be included with no harm
> > > to users or ICANN. They would have to meet a set of standards that
> > should be
> > > arrived at through a bottom up procedure THROUGH the DNSO using both the
> > > @Large and the GA to work on it.
> >
> >   Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > But of course there will be reasons given why it isn't just this easy.
> > IT IS
> > > THIS EASY.
> >
> >   Yes of course...  And we all know why as well...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You see WXW and Dassa. I am not out to destroy ICANN. I am on the list to
> > > help find a way ICANN can perform it's functions in the manner of a
> > > nonprofit org that represents the users not as it has been acting as a for
> > > profit corp looking out for the IP Interests and the other corps. That
> > is an
> > > area where I am comfortable in stating an opinion about and more than
> > > qualified to do so.
> >
> >   WXW, Darryl (AKA Dessa) and others of their points of view, have
> >a problem with being open in their thought processes.  You just have
> >to deal with that as best you can, or ignore them all together....
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com>
> > > To: "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>
> > > Cc: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <webmaster@babybows.com>;
> > > <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:27 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
> > >
> > > > At 09:17 AM 6/15/01 -0700, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since I
> > left
> > > > >two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone who
> > > > >disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that would depend upon being able to back it up with true
> > > > facts. Not this factually-inaccurate spin that Vint sells to CNN.
> > > >
> > > > >The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a single
> > > > >authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document and the
> > > > >references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of
> > > > >Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear
> > indication of
> > > > >ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I suggest you read
> > > > >them again. They are not very hard to understand and their statements
> > > with
> > > > >regard to an authoritative single root and to competing roots are quite
> > > clear.
> > > >
> > > > It appears that short-sighted near-term policy overrides any sane
> > > long-term
> > > > response. Unfortunately, the consequences of such blind actions will harm
> > > > the Internet far more than a sensible long-term policy.
> > > >
> > > > >My statement on ICANN Policy is not unilateral -- it is well-grounded in
> > > > >the community processes that led to the White Paper and to the formation
> > > > >of ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to the coup that took the IAHC away from Postel? Which
> > > > led to the hopelessly illegal sham called the gTLD-MOU? Which the White
> > > > Paper stopped dead, only to be subverted by the very same people who were
> > > > behind the gTLD-MOU?
> > > >
> > > > Hardly what I call a "well-grounded community process".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >--
> >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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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