[ga] Kent gets real - wrong but real

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
On the iCANN point of view - you got the real point:
What to do to respect the charter and - incidently to protect the duopoloy 
iCANN/NSI?
On 09:26 16/06/01, Kent Crispin said:
>Nonsense.  It gives a clear direction to ICANN that it should not
>encourage the creation of alternate root systems.  And it is crystal
>clear that any recognition of existing alternate root systems would be
>an encouragment for the creation of more.

IMHO the iCANN has a policy which dramatically encourages the creation of 
foreign TLDs.

I say it from direct experience: I purchased thousands of DNs for some 
large developments we work on. I then proposed the iCANN to cooperate 
instead through the ".sys" *donated* innovative TLD (it was better 
management, better service to the users, better service to all - no 
cybersquatting and no competition to other TLDs). I quoted the response 
here many times as IMO it founds the current 'problem': "if you intend to 
enter the international TLD business, you are to be prepared to spend much 
more than $ 50.000". Up to then I did know we were talking about 
*servicing* the community.

So business it was: I gathered the necessary funding. Ask Andrew what 
happened next: I accept it was unfortunate, but it fully shown iCANN was 
absolutely *not* prepared to enter any international business at all. (BTW 
Andrew, we still wait for your apologies).

No one wants to develop a business without a market. iCANN created the 
foreign TLD market in asking $ 50.000 to consider delivering a technical $ 
20 service it has not yet hired the manager for. There would be no New.net 
otherwise, nor all the others to come. There would not be any attention 
brought to foreign roots and TLDs had Vint not decided to start the bug.biz 
confrontation that now obviously Leah will win.

Then Louis Touton and Joe Sims with their e-legal TLD model succeeded in 
blocking the world's development for nearly *one year* now. The first "new" 
TLDs being surprisingly (?) enough one for compadre NSI and the one which 
must first defeat Leah to get through. This is what iCANN names "proof of 
concept": to prove they can increase NSI revenues and kill competition at 
others' legal and technical expenses.

I do not know if it will prove that. What I know is it will work in 
creating TLDs. There will be more than one million TLDs in operation by the 
end of 2001. Probalby 200 or 300 colliders and at least 5 new.net like 
plug-ins. Thank you iCANN.

Karl Auerbach was only proposing 1000 TLDs a year on a lottery. Would the 
TLD registration fee have been set to $100 or even $1000 there would be 
less than 100 new TLDs in smooth operations today and probably less than 
300 new this year. And there would be no problem.

Oh! sorry may be missing revenues for John Day? Actually I do not know: 
would the iCANN be what it should be as a root: the association of the 
TLDs, the more money making TLDs they are the more revenues. Even if tese 
TLDs we would not have agreed on the proposed 2002 budget.  :-)

Jefsey



--
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