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

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

WXW and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

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

  Sometimes compromise is not expectable.  Sometimes it is.  I don't
see why for now the second time in two days we all need to be
reminded of your feelings as to what Chris should do.  You can
do that off list, WXW.  Secondly, I don't see any battle that
you seem to believe that Chirs is fighting here that is a win-lose
situation.  Third, any issue related with the DNS is a battle that
needs to be fought win or lose.

>
>
> 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

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