RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Darryl, thanks for your commentary. I think you and I are largely in
agreement...

Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:40 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution


|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 8:36 AM
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> I'm interested in better understanding where the stakeholders are on
|> different perspectives: for instance, if the registry model  for TLDs are
|> based on "not for profit" models/assumptions, and the competition
|> essentially begins with the registrars,who are all allowed to (if
|> accredited) to register in all ICANN accredited registries), then the
number
|> of registrations in a particular registry is less relevant, it seems to
me.
|> There has to be some mechanism to prevent price gouging, etc. in this
model.
|> Otherwise, we'd see bad practices at the registry level, such as charging
|> different prices for different names to the registrars, who would pass
that
|> along to the user.  Competition among registry/TLDs doesn't seem to be
quite
|> the full answer.

I see the structure having a fixed price across all Registies, fixed by
ICANN.
There may be some diversity between TLD's to increase usage but personally I
would prefer to have a standard price across all.  I see it as a funding
mechanism for ICANN and for development.  The current price is $6 USD per
domain.  I would like to see it set at $4 USD.  $1 going directly to ICANN,
$1
going into a fund for research and development, the other $2 to remain with
the
Registry for operating costs and associated development.  There would not be
any
competition between Registries aside from promotion of the TLD they operate.

|> Some may disagree with me, but in fact, over time, some TLDs are likely
to
|> be more "used" than others.  There are a lot of factors to consider in
how
|> that evolves.  And, some TLDs may be (unfortunately) primarily/initially
|> filled with duplicate registrations from .com, since defensive
registrations
|> will be necessary to avoid consumer confusion, fraud, and trademark
|> dilution.  I see no relief from that in some TLDS.

We will continue to see the defensive registrations until such time as the
TLD's
become more numerous and diverse.  Each TLD also needs specific guidelines
as to
what type of registrations are permitted.    There will always be some TLD's
with limited numbers of registrations.  One of the reasons I wish to see the
Registries operated by non-commercial interest.  Otherwise we will only ever
have TLD's with a high commercial value associated with them.

|> We'll have to wait and see if in fact, new registrations dominate, or if
the
|> space is largely defensive registrations.

I believe the defensive registrations will drop off once the name space
occupies
a larger turf.

|> As new services evolve, and directories become more useable/available,
|> perhaps we'll see a move to more "friendly" names (longer, complete
words,
|> etc.)  That may also create new forms of expansion of the name space.

I see such directories etc as being another layer on top of the DNS.

|> However, in the meantime, of interest, and note, in fact, the present
|> approach in ICANN seems to also support the concept of "niche" TLDs, that
|> is, those who are likely to have a limited, but important group of
potential
|> registrants, such as in .museum, for instance.  This concept seems to
serve
|> the stakeholders by logical expansion of the name space, for stability,
|> usability, and minimized confusion by users, rather than to focus on
|> creating a registry as a money making endeavor for itself.

I see value in such niche TLD's.  The whole purpose of the DNS is to make
our
lives easier and make finding what we are after less painless.  It is not as
has
been the case recently, for commercial interests to gain large financial
benefits.

|> Treating a registry/TLD as a limited resource, somewhat like spectrum,
seems
|> to be consistent with the ccTLDs' practices, (or most of them).
|>
|> I don't really see how registry "competition" can work, in short.  But if
|> someone can describe their vision, I'm willing to listen.

I see the Registries as being Internet resources.  I do not see any need for
competition at that level.  If anything, competition at the Registry level
has a
number of disadvantages.  Mainly being the involvement of commercial
interests
who are primarily interested in maintaining high profit centers.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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
--
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