Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Peter,
the entire domain name issue is contradictory due to the ACPA and IP
people misunderstanding the nature of the domain name. I went into the
same problem at the IETF with the multinational and Babel 
Names.

There are actually three adressing layers:
1. hardware: the IP address
2. software: the domain name reoslving into the IP address
3. brainware: the mnemonic resolving in people's mind to .com or for
locall name to the local ccTLD.

Obviously famous marks are brainware and mnemonic. Not understanding the
difference between an alphanumeric pointer (domain name) and an intuitive
feeling (human reaction to a famous mark) created the problem. ccTLDs
wanting to capitalize on people's legitimacy and benefiting frolm a
mnemonic resolution into their ccTLD were de facto more brainware
oriented and more real. The LIC legitimacy makes sense (however how many
ccTLD really relate with their @large? I would be happy some really
would)

gTLDs cannot do the same.

1. they are blocked by ACPA which is based upon the idea that layer 3
does not exist
2. they suvive on that. Otherwise they would not have sold a single .biz
or .info.
3. to help maintaining that error, ICANN helped .com grow into a too
large community without unity. Un manageable. Verisign would(will) die
from it. 

Now, .info could operate as the specialized TLD Postel wanted.
Com and net are beyond recovery.

Competition is over the mnemonic resolution. Which TLD are the people to
associate to a mnemonic?
By "default" they add ".com". Find a way to confuse
them, you rebuild the market.


jfc



On 00:05 30/09/02, Peter Dengate Thrush said:

comments below

----- Original Message -----

From: Neuman, Jeff

To: 'ga@dnso.org'

Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 10:24 AM

Subject: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

This is from the gTLD Constituency and has been sent to the ERC Committee.  I know this should spark some interesting debate.

 

Subject: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

>The Registry Constituency has been a vocal supporter of reform from its inception.  In fact, many of the Registries joined in a letter to the Department of Commerce expressing our support for the reform efforts.  One of the main reasons that we supported ICANN reform from the beginning was because of the perceived inefficiencies of the current DNSO. The result of such inefficiencies has led those parties that have contracts with ICANN (namely, the gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars) to become disenfranchised with the current policy development process. 

Jeff - there's some irony in this. Its not the inefficiency of the DNSO which you were objecting to, it seems, buts its efficiency in "disenfranchising" you and the registrars.

>Too often, political games have been played to overshadow the voices of the Registries and the Registrars in the current process, even though it is recognized that most, if not all, of the proposed policies affect the contracted parties in a way that is much different than those parties that are not under contract with ICANN. Unfortunately, as the ERC process has evolved, the inefficiencies of the current DNSO appear to be re-emerging.

Again, you describe a political result you don't like as an "inefficiency".

>As the ERC properly realized, not all stakeholders are equally affected.

>The registrars and registries are contractually bound to comply with any ICANN consensus policies.  New or changed policies can have a significant financial impact on their operations.  We believe that the protection of registrar and registry rights as contracting parties within the proposed GNSO is an important and essential safeguard.

Here is where your argument becomes more difficult for me to follow. You seem to be elevating the contract between you/registrars and ICANN to a different level of political importance than the contract beteen a registrant and a registrar. Why?

Given that all the funding flows from registrants to registrars, that the conditions of end use, and that much of the ICANN policy discussion is about the impact on users of names and address procedures, why isn't the view of the vast numbers of registrants significantly more important than the views of the providers??

Why shoudn't the g registries be obliged to adopt at least a little of the ethos (which we regard as contractually binding via RFC 1591, as well as socially appropriate) binding the cc registries, that the registry has to serve the community its provided to serve? Why shouldn't the structure require the registries and registrars to sit around the table with their user community?

If the conditions of the user community result in a business which is unprofitable, or unsuited, those entities running them can take a busines decision to leave that business. If, on the other hand, the conditions imposed by registries and registrars are unsuitable for users, where can they go?

My personal preference would be to ensure that users rights should be more carefully protected that those of registries and registrars, precisely because they are typically small, individual, disparate and the economic effect per person makes any issue uneconomic to fight. OTOH registries and registrars have well-known economic and political advantages.

You blur this issue to speak of "contracting parties" while ignoring the end user contracts.

There is a need to balance the undoubted importance of successful and innovative registries and registrars, competing in an economic battle for business, with the needs of users.  Considerable clarity of thinking is need to ensure all interests are kept in balance.

 

regards

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/09/02