Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

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

On 17:32 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
>It has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.

This would be a good point enough should the domain name had not be 
confused with the mnemonic. You perfectly know that everyone around the 
world first resolves a mnemonic into mnemonic.com as a domain name.

That would be a good point should that confusion did not result from 
ICANN's policy though the lack of new TLDs.


Now, Ross, what is the capitalism to do with this? I have allways been 
explained that Internet was an academic network of military origin and that 
names had a rate helping to support the cost of managing and developping 
the network?  I certainly observed that bluntly a fee became a discounted 
price but if was after I started using that domain names of mine. I 
genuinely believed when I started that Internet was democraticaly managed 
(I even rad the bylaws of ICANN) and that $100/two years was the real cost 
of the Internet operations under the control of the USG.

I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public 
service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same 
as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly lesson 
of English -).

But may I ask a question? What was the capital investment?
If you go on the ICANN site, you will find the IANA agreement where the USG 
sells the IANA function to ICAN for less than $ 10.000. Means that I have 
paid 7 times the price Internets. Even by tough capitalistic standard it 
would be a good deal for the seller :-)

As an US tax payer, are not surprised that the USG Might sell for such a 
low price something generating so much revenue. I really think WRSN could 
thank Mr. DeWitt from Eindhoven, who I suppose never got a cent for having 
initially coined "com".
jfc