Re: [nc-org] implementation and TF process

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, at 16:55 [=GMT-0400], Ken Stubbs wrote:

> you conclusions here marc are way off base...

They may very well be. Still what sort of applicants have a chance? 

> i am sure you can see that  it quite clear from elisabeth's description that
> this is a rather sophisticated operational endeavor with a good size staff
> and a substantial operational budget.

A lot of it will or can be outsourced, e.g. the whois and registry
operation. Other (new) registries do this too, if I am not mistaken.

> also ...most complex "non-profits" with a volume this size are managed by
> "professionals"...

"with a strong business background" was what triggered my remark. I
would find it rather sad if only an organization that is merely a
non-profit in name has a chance to apply with any success. I would
hope that first ICANN will look at the ideas behind the proposed
plans. The hiring of marketing managers can be done later.

I would not be surprised if there were people out there who would like
the new ORG to be mainly a competitor to Verisign. That is, of course,
also part of what is behind this ORG split off: competition. True
competition in my view creates possibilities (esp. in a *regulated*
market as the DNS) for other types of entities. 

> if you cant see the need for this then you are not being realistic at all.
>
> you dont really believe that the ICANN board would just "turn over the
> registry" to a group of people without professional "management
> experience"..& proper technical expertise.. to do so would be a breach of
> the boards responsibility to the current users of ".org" as well as the
> internet community..

Well, eh, .INFO was a day late in resolving its first batch of
registrations. We don't want that to happen to ORG, no. I am not
against professionals, on the contrary. I am not even against legal
professionals. I am against putting up barriers that make it
impossible for new bottom-up groups to apply for ORG, and limit
chances to those which already have vested interests in the DNS and/or
can cough up the money involved in such an approach.

The new ORG will get $5M. They need a good plan, not a lot of money
and expensive names.
 
> even institutions like syracuse university have business offices and
> professional managers to deal with the non-academic "business side" of
> managing an educational institution..

This is even true in Europe. But these people are 'hired' and do what
the board says. The are not part of any policy making.

Marc

> also the overwhelming majority of "trustee style" boards of most non profit
> institutions generally are comprised of individuals who bring a diverse
> background of experience to the board (including business management) to the
> "oversight function" of any non profit..


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@schneiders.org>
> To: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> Cc: <nc-org@dnso.org>; "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-org] implementation and TF process
> 
> 
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, at 16:23 [=GMT-0400], Ken Stubbs wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > In order to protect against usurpation by the ICANN Staff, we
> > > > can perhaps add some general caveat that "contractual negotiations
> > > > with ICANN should not be used to impose additional policy
> > > > requirements on the applicant." (This would have to be worded
> > > > much more carefully, of course).
> > >
> > > this concept needs to be clearly elaborated... "not for profit" is a
> very
> > > broad 'concept"...
> > > there has to be a clearly defined  business plan proposed and
> "experienced
> > > professional mgt " with
> > > a strong business background.
> >
> > So only something like Afilias minus NetSol can succesfully apply to
> > be the new operator? If this is the case, we are wasting our time
> > here.
> >
> >
>