[ga] Call for a Working Group

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Jeff

Nice try but worthless.  I won't explain why, somebody else will do that.

I just wish you and Derek Conant would clarify these issues offlist first.
Then you might understand the dynamics of the situation !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Field <jfield@aaaq.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: Christopher Ambler <cambler-dompol@iodesign.com>; William X. Walsh
<william@userfriendly.com>; <jandl@jandl.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2001 7:13 AM
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Call for a Working Group


> All this McDonalds/Burger King food talk got me thinking (a sometimes
> dangerous thing)...
>
> Today you have the ICANN root (McDonalds), the PacificRoot root (Burger
> King), and perhaps some other roots (Wendys, Jack In The Box, etc....but
> let's keep this simple).  Well, if I'm McDonalds, I don't sell Burger King
> food (unless I want to and have an agreement with Burger King that allows me
> to do so).  And, if I'm Burger King, I don't sell McDonalds food (unless I
> want to and have an agreement with McDonalds that allows me to do so).  On
> that, I think we can all agree.
>
> Applying the above well-accepted business practice to the ICANN root vs.
> alternative root situation, and the idea that the roots are for all intents
> and purposes in competition with each other...
>
> It would seem to me that PacificRoot has no right to include in their root
> the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, etc.) or the ccTLDs (.uk, .au, .fr, etc.) that
> are contained in the ICANN root (hopefully, we can all agree that those TLDs
> were in the ICANN root first).  By the same logic, the ICANN root also has
> no right to include in their root the TLD's (.web, .biz, .scuba, etc.) that
> are contained in PacificRoot's root (hopefully, we can all agree that those
> TLDs were in PacificRoot's root first).
>
> If we can all agree on the statements above, then it would seem to me that
> the answer to the ICANN root vs. alternative root situation might be
> relatively simple...
>
> ICANN should request that PacificRoot immediately remove all ICANN TLDs from
> their systems.  If PacificRoot refuses to do so, ICANN should pursue all
> legal means to accomplish this goal (it's definitely a fair competition
> issue, after all, they're trying to drive traffic to their system and away
> from ICANN's system).  By the same token, ICANN should agree not to include
> in the ICANN root all the TLDs currently in PacificRoot's root (yes, that
> means giving up .biz...I'll deal with that below).
>
> Obviously, the practical effect of all this is that traffic to PacificRoot's
> root would dwindle to a trickle and the commercial value of .biz and .web
> and the other TLDs being in their root would quickly go to nil.  At that
> point, the .web and .biz registries (and the others) would have to make a
> decision; either stay with PacificRoot's root or try to get into ICANN's
> root.  If they want to stay in PacificRoot's root, fine.  If they want to
> get into ICANN's root, fine again...all they have to do is apply and be
> accepted.  Simple solution, huh?  But wait...
>
> I know, I know...I left out one little detail.  What to do with Melbourne IT
> and the fact that ICANN already awarded them .biz?  Well, assuming you could
> make all the above happen, I have to believe that both the .web and .biz
> registries would take a hard look at their business models and conclude that
> the ICANN root would be the only place to be.  Otherwise, having the rights
> to register .web and .biz domain names would be worth roughly zip.  And, if
> I were either, I would jump at the chance to cut a deal with Melbourne IT to
> get in on this first round of new TLDs.  And, if I were Melbourne IT, I just
> might jump at the chance to replace .biz with .web.  So, the solution to
> this problem just might be to...
>
> Get ICANN, Melbourne IT, Christopher Ambler (.web), and Leah Gallegos (.biz)
> all in the same vicinity and let them play, "Let's Make A Deal"!  The
> dynamics might be:
>
> - .web might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
> want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
> - .biz might see value in being included in the first round of new TLDs and
> want to cut a deal with Melbourne IT
> - .web and .biz might compete with each other to cut a deal with Melbourne
> IT
> - ICANN just wants to put this whole problem to bed with any kind of
> reasonable solution
>
> As a carrot to get a deal done, ICANN might/should consider making a rule
> for all future registry applications along the following lines, "the entity
> making application may not currently be operational in any other root system
> nor lay claim to any previously held or believed to be previously held IP
> (Intellectual Property) rights for the particular TLD for which it is
> applying".  IOW, the entity making a future application would be on equal
> footing with any other entity which submits an application for the same TLD.
> So, .web and .biz could stay in PacificRoot's root and never go anywhere or
> take the chance on a future application with ICANN...but not before they
> gave up their previous claims to the TLD and stood on equal footing with any
> other entity that wants the same TLD.  So, if I were Christopher or Leah, I
> think I'd want to cut a deal this time around.
>
> Anyway, I'm sure there can be some tweaking; I don't have all the
> answers...but just thought I'd send this along as "food for thought".
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
> --
> jeff field
> 925-283-4083
> jfield@aaaq.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