RE: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 5:03 PM
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
|> our laws.  The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
|> issues, must be the driving factors.  ICANN it bound by those simply
|> because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
|> what "power" it has are with the US Government.

Which is forcing the rest of the world to conform to the authority of the USG
over the Internet.  Something I do not personally agree with but accept as the
practical course for the present.  In the future, I would like to see a more
International approach.

|> > I assume you refer to the price fixing as
|> > being illegal.  I would not have any problem with it being competitive,
|> > providing the Registries were run on a non-profit basis by non-commercial
|> > entities.  This may be the best option, with ICANN setting a price cap and
|> > defining how the fees should be distributed.  The Registries could still
use
|> > price as a competitive option and as WX has pointed out, satisfy the need
as
|> > some people see it for competition to drive innovation and development.  My
main
|> > contention is that such infrastructure should not be in the hands of
localised
|> > commercial interests.
|>
|> Why not?
|>
|> The infrastructure that IS the internet is privately owned by commercial
interests.

No, not all of it.  Although they are taking up more and more.  The problem with
having commercial interests involved with all levels of the infrastructure is
that they are primarily concerned with their bottom dollar figures and not in
the general well being of the Internet.  Although commercial interests do have
an important role, I do not want to see them having total control over
everything.

|> If those interests are not reacting to the market in the way that they
|> should, then others are free to innovate in a way that will.

They also try to exploit markets, often having detrimental effects on end users.
There are limited protection layers for end users.

|> This is why New.net has been as successful as they have of late.
|> ICANN was not aggressively solving the consumer demand for more
|> namespace.  As a result, New.net and their TLDs are now visible by
|> over 5% of internet users worldwide in their first month of business.
|>
|> ICANN is now reacting to that pressure, by directing the president to
|> act on a fast track to get the negotiations for the 7 new TLDs
|> completed ASAP.

I agree ICANN has not been reacting well to the demand for more TLD's.  I do not
see any need to limit the TLD's in the way they have been, nor do I agree with
fragmentation of the DNS.

|> Competitive pressure is usually the best pressure that exists.

Competitive pressure can be applied at multiple levels.  It will be interesting
to see how the new.net operation goes.

|> Without it, we get bureaucracy and red tape, and all of the many
|> things those bring with them.

With commercialisation we often get the same and other factors introduced
including market glut and the failure of a proportion of the entities involved.

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