Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Good evening.

What puzzles me in this discussion is the following.
>
> >> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
> >> entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
> >> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
> >
> >fat chance.
>
>That is in the agreement.  They can of course argue it in court but if
>for example they have insisted if they have the contract renewed that
>they can charge $8 per name and a competing bid said they can do it
>for $3 a name then ICANN would be on fairly strong ground to go with
>the competitor.


Do we *really* think that the domain names registration business will be 
anything similar to what it is today in 2007?
I bet that nobody by then will try to locate a company by guessing the name, 
so the value attached to the name (and the value of the market thereof) will 
be completely different.

What looks the key point to me is what will happen to .org.
Of course, I don't think that VeriSign will be happy to have a strong 
competitor around, therefore I assume that they will ask that the 
non-for-profit status of .org shall be enforced. This will simply mean that 
the operating cost of a registration in .org will be substancially higher 
than .com, because the registry (or the registrars) have to check the 
qualifications of the subscriber.
This will make sure that .org will not be anywhere near other TLDs like 
.biz, for instance.
Then we have the problem of whoever is already in .org (in good or bad 
faith). Will they be allowed to stay forever, or will they just have a grace 
term to migrate?
What will be the UDRP? Can I build a non-profit with a name that is already 
used by a for-profit, and use some mechanism for hijacking the name on the 
ground that the current owner is not-not-for-profit (or that he/she just 
cannot prove it enough, because of the specific rules for not-for-profit in 
his/her country?

Well, this all shows, IMHO, that to rush a decision is probably not the best 
thing to do. I do expect a lively debate, and a lot of comments, and 
personally I am in favour of providing enough time for it.


On the other subject on whether DNSO is involved or not, besides that 
somebody has already pointed out the letter to NC, I believe that while it 
is true that ICANN can obviously take any decision without waiting for the 
DNSO, I think that from the DNSO's part it would be silly not to say its 
word on it.
We have lost already so many chances to count (see, for instance, the 
lukewarm support of some WG results without even proposing something else) 
that we cannot avod to take a position on this.
Otherwise people will start seriously questioning why at all we need a DNSO 
at all.

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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