RE: [ga] Call for a Working Group

["Jeff Field" <jfield@aaaq.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Patrick
> Corliss
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 3:19 PM
> To: Jeff Field
> Cc: Derek Conant; [GA]
> Subject: [ga] Call for a Working Group
>
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> Nice try but worthless.  I won't explain why, somebody else will do that.

I would really like to know why you think it's worthless.  A one-liner to
dismiss the idea is not good enough.

> I just wish you and Derek Conant would clarify these issues offlist first.

As far as I know, I don't believe I've ever met nor talked to Derek Conant.
I'm hoping your comment was not designed to imply that Derek Conant and I
are somehow acting in concert or that we share the same views, opinions,
ideas, or whatever (we may or may not...I am just not familiar enough with
him to say either way).  What exactly did you mean?

> Then you might understand the dynamics of the situation !!

Ummmm...I think I understand the dynamics just fine, thanks!

> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

Regards,

Jeff
--
jeff field
925-283-4083
jfield@aaaq.com

[Enclosed for reference]
> 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