Re[4]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello NameCritic,

Chris, you have to learn to fight the battles you can win, and
compromise were you can't.

I thought that was getting through to you.

Monday, June 18, 2001, 1:05:27 AM, NameCritic wrote:


> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
> To: "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@opticom.v-nam.net>
> Cc: "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>; "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>;
> <ga-roots@dnso.org>; "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 12:09 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version


>> Hello Stefan,
>>
>> Sunday, June 17, 2001, 8:00:02 PM, 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.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> > 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)?
>>
>> I agree Stefan.  But you have to remember, we had to fight tooth and
>> nail to get a TESTBED expansion done.
>>
>> And as always a testbed must have higher standards and barriers.  It
>> HAS to succeed, and those of us who support future aggressive
>> expansion have to recognize that ANYTHING that helps ensure that each
>> and every one of the approved TLDs will succeed in their respective
>> areas is something we should support, even if silently, and then when
>> the concept has proven itself, and the sky didn't fall, and AT&T
>> didn't have to file 100,000 lawsuits, that we can argue MUCH more
>> effectively for a more liberal set of requirements.
>>
>> But, we need to recognize that minimum technical, and by correlation
>> business and financial, standards MUST be in place, even in the
>> future.  In many bidding processes the check sent with the bid is a
>> cost of doing business, and it is essentially a gamble, like so many
>> other things in business are.  An application fee that helps cover the
>> costs, and also presents a reasonable barrier to help keep the riff
>> raff out (which do bring a destabilizing factor with them), is a good
>> thing, and if you don't agree with that, then you may just have to say
>> it is a necessary evil.
>>
>> Since our chairs don't seem interested in providing any leadership, I
>> suggest a summary of the things we agree on be prepared.  In my long
>> experience working in informal grounds, I've found that his is
>> helpful as a starting point for future discussions, and keeps us from
>> covering the same territory over and over again.  It is the kind of
>> thing that Danny and Patrick should have started doing a long long
>> time ago.
>>
>> May I suggest the following: (Please speak up with what you disagree,
>> and feel free to present your own list, and then we can merge those
>> things that do not meet with substantive opposition.
>>
>> 1) A completely open free for all in creation of new TLDs is not
>> something we can support as a stable manner of operations

> As long as they meet the Standard requirements then anyone should be able to
> apply. These standards cannot be set by the ICANN BoD or in any Top Down
> Function. #1 here should have been Produce a Set Standard that a Business or
> Individual knows about so they can plan their application to meet the
> standards. That was not done in the previous round. The applicants were not
> given sufficient time to plan for standards that didn't even exist nor were
> any real across the board standards used in the selection process. The
> applicants should not have lost their money in this unfair fashion and those
> that did not get approved have a legitimate complaint.

> The Standards should be set in some bottom up fashion either through the GA
> and @Large or through the TLDA or another Industry group representing TLD
> owners. If the standards are set from the top down as has been the case so
> far, then only large corps will get to run tlds. It is not necessary to be
> Verisign to operate a tld.

>>
>> 2) TLD selections should reflect a diversity in business models, this
>> to include issues such as diversity in the registry/registrar split
>> policy on a case by case basis where the TLD operator presents a
>> strong case for such a model.

> I disagree. The market will decide what is or is not marketable. We have no
> need whatsoever for ICANN to judge what the users will or will not want. If
> a .XXX exists and a .SEX which they do, then let the users decide which they
> prefer to use. There is absolutely no need or desire to have this regulated.
> Again limiting choices for the end users is not the goal.

>>
>> 3) The TLD operator should be required to meet certain minimum
>> financial commitments, as well as a strong business model and plan,
>> including a healthy fiscal forecast.  Note I am not getting specific
>> here, as what may be fiscally healthy for an open gTLD may not be for
>> a specific chartered TLD available only to Systematic Entomologists
>> for instance (.bug anyone?  :)

> Not under current circumstances is ANY fee acceptable up front. No one can
> get an investor to put up money that would basically be better used betting
> the horses than betting whether ICANN will or will not approve a tld. The
> put up the money and if we want to we'll give you a tld attitude has to go
> completely. You mentioned a Bond. It shows fiscal responsibility in the same
> way to produce a bond. If approved or not approved then the money is still
> the applicant's money minus the fee to the bond provider. The fee was NOT to
> show stability and is not needed to do so. Again ICANN is not qualified to
> judge someone else's business plan nor should they be attempting to do so. I
> am not even sure if a bond is appropriate, but ICANN has a hard time showing
> that they themselves have a sufficient plan for funding and you want them to
> judge another's financial stability?

> Many dot com companies that had huge amounts of VC failed. Many dot commers
> who started with no or very little money did not fail and are still around.
> The amount of money one has is no indicator that they will succeed. Look at
> Bezos. Makes billions in sales and still can't turn a profit. ICANN is a
> technical body that is supposed to make sure that a proposal is technically
> sound. That has nothing to do with putting up $50,000. And ICANN would be
> sufficiently funded as suggested through the $1 fee per domain name
> registered.

> Waivers could be applied for altogether for the truly altruistic sorts of
> TLDs and they could be nonprofit in nature as well. There would be plenty of
> income from the more commercial domain registrations.

> One thing further on this. Applicants for new TLDs should not be applying to
> ICANN in the first place. That is where the DNSO should pick up the role.
> Once approved then ICANN would make sure there were no technical issues in
> implementing that tld. If there were technical concerns then it could
> possibly be vetoed or sent back to the DNSO with the reasons and other
> considerations that tld owner must overcome before acceptance.

>>
>> 4) Reasonable "failure" plans should exist.  For example, the registry
>> agrees to assign to ICANN all rights to the registry and property
>> associated with the registry (for reassignment) in the event they are
>> unwilling or unable for any reason to continue operating the registry,
>> and agree to cooperate FULLY in any transition.  Data escrow is
>> MANDATORY.  A performance/failure bond of a size reasonable to cover
>> transition costs perhaps?

> Again if the initial bond was put up at apllication time it could remain
> there for this very purpose with some time limit where there would no longer
> be one required. But those assets would not belong to ICANN. They would go
> into escrow until a new company applied to the DNSO to operate that tld.

>>
>> 5) A complete business plan to cover the full technical implementation
>> for the registry and for the development of the registry.

> A full business plan has not much to do with the technical implementation. A
> technical plan yes. Again ICANN nor the DNSO should or Can be a qualified
> judge of someone's business plan. Stock Market Analysts can't even do that.
> People still invest on their advice and lose their shirts.

>>
>> Ok, I've kick started this, toss some darts at it, or contribute your
>> own.
>>
> Kicked back. Oops. To anyone offended. No pun intended.


>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
>> Userfriendly.com Domains
>> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>>



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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