[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] Eureka?
Hello Jean-Michael,
In a commerce operation (ie ebay.com, schwab.com, etc.) technical
continuance, stability, reliability, are all part of the financial
viability. An unreliable system loses customers, fast. Loss of
customer-base directly affects revenue and stock evaluation, in a
negative direction, always. Only if reliable operations are maintained
are customers satisfied and retained. Only a retained customer-base, of
a minimum size, will allow the registry to pass the test I have
outlined. Ergo, one need not address the technical issues at all.
In a competitive environment, one of the chief means of competitive
advantage is the use of ever greater levels of technology. In fact, a
side effect is expected to be innovation over-kill. For the rest of us,
this may be a good thing(tm). This would result in an ever increasing
rise in the Service Level Agreement bar. I expect that, we would
eventually see 99.999% uptimes and 75% reduction in cost, plus many
additional services and features, with such registries. There would be
an abundance of convenience and stability.
> From: Jean-Michel Becar [mailto:Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 9:36 AM
>
> I think Roeland you made a good point here:
>
> > I would restrict each registry to a single TLD, until they
> > have met existance proofs of continued business operations
> > (one year of
> > profitability, or non-negative cash-flow).
>
> BUT we don't have to focus only on financial viability of the
> new registries
> but also on the technical part for the sake of the stability.
>
> Jean-Michel Bécar
> becar@etsi.fr
> http://www.etsi.org
> E.T.S.I. Project Manager
> Tel: +(33) (0)4 92 94 43 15
> Fax: +(33) (0)4 92 38 52 15
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 18:06
> > To: mueller@syr.edu; wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Eureka?
> >
> >
> > I once listened to my partner and CTO, a Ph.D in CS, wrt
> > advertising. He
> > was so concerned that we don't flood the servers with new
> > customer that
> > he strongly held the view that we should only advertise
> > minimally, in a
> > targeted fashion. Counter to my own better experience, we
> acted on his
> > opinion. The response rate was, predictably, zero. The
> lesson learned,
> > Engineering staff have no clue and optimistically
> > over-estimate, market
> > responses. That is not the first, or only, time I have run that
> > particular experiment.
> >
> > I submit, if we open up the root to thousands of TLDs, with no
> > restrictions whatsoever, that we will be lucky to even get ONE
> > additional TLD registry out of it, not counting CORE. I submit that
> > additional TLDs, from NSI, is not what we want. What we want
> > is new TLD
> > registries, in competition with NSI. I would dearly love to
> > see at least
> > three new TLD registries, as well as a root registry to manage them.
> > Initially, I would restrict each registry to a single TLD,
> until they
> > have met existance proofs of continued business operations
> > (one year of
> > profitability, or non-negative cash-flow).
> >
> > This argument, wrt new gTLDs, is somewhat of a red-herring.
> The direct
> > issue is new registries. Only then, do we address the
> > quantity of gTLDs.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
> > Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> > http://www.mhsc.com/
> > mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
> > --------------------
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> > > Milton Mueller
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 1999 8:21 AM
> > > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?
> > >
> > >
> > > Kent:
> > > Here's a scenario. Tell me if it addresses your concerns.
> > >
> > > On 1 Jan 2000, ICANN issues its long-awaited new gTLD
> > > decision. The rulemaking
> > > contains the following items:
> > >
> > > 1) ICANN announces that it will accept applications to run
> > > TLDs from up to 10 new
> > > qualified registries. It announces that 5 of them will be
> > > shared and 5 will be
> > > exclusive. It issues an RFP with basic, minimal guidelines
> > > for each model. The
> > > guidelines include whatever TM protection criteria the DNSO
> > > can agree upon.
> > > Applications can be submitted any time after 1 March, 2000.
> > >
> > > 2) ICANN announces that it is prepared to add up to 300 new
> > > TLDs to the root over the
> > > next 3 years, based on applications from registries. In cases
> > > of conflicting
> > > applications for the same name ICANN will decide who, if
> > > anyone, gets it. In the first
> > > year, each shared registry will be allowed to run 3 gTLDs and
> > > each exclusive will be
> > > allowed to run 1 gTLD. The next year, 10 new registry
> > > proposals will be entertained,
> > > and existing registries will be allowed to submit proposals
> > > to add TLDs to their
> > > repertoire. The maximum new gTLDs in the second year will be
> > > 100. A third iteration
> > > planned for the third year could take the number up to 300.
> > >
> > > 3) ICANN's decision contains an escape clause that allows it
> > > to put the brakes on the
> > > expansion of the name space, but only if certain clearly
> > > defined criteria are met. In
> > > other words, the presumption is that the expansion will go
> > > forward unless serious
> > > problems are *proven* to arise.
> > >
> > > Assume the "worst" from a TM/IP point of view: in the first
> > > year, there are actually
> > > 10 viable proposals for registries, which means that a
> > > maximum of 20 new gTLDs would
> > > be *authorized* in the first year. Authorization is not the
> > > same thing as operation.
> > > If they get the go-ahead from ICANN in April, the registries
> > > will come on line in
> > > staggered intervals from May to October. Even by April, the
> > > Internet should have
> > > several months of experience with whatever form of DRP it
> > has adopted.
> > >
> > > The advantage of a broad authorization of a significant
> > > number of new TLDs is that it
> > > creates a competitive marketplace and makes ample room for
> > > all of the various parties,
> > > both new and old, who want to get in to the market, with less
> > > arbitrary
> > > discrimination. These are vital consumer and supplier
> > > benefits. They are are equal in
> > > status to the claims of trademark owners. But if in fact
> > > serious TM problems occur,
> > > ICANN could cut short the experiment and amend its plan.
> > >
> > > It is also quite possible under this scenario that ICANN does
> > > *not* receive qualified
> > > applications from 10 new registries, or that applications
> > > trickle in rather slowly.
> > > Several people have raised serious questions about whether
> > > the business case exists
> > > for more than three or four new registries. There is
> > > uncertainty about this. In my
> > > opinion, ICANN owes it to the markeplace to err on the large
> > > side. That is, it is
> > > better to be prepared to authorize 10 and then learn that
> > > only 5 are ready, than it is
> > > to arbitrarily cut off 5 or 6 viable businesses.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >
> > > > That sounds to me like advocacy of a "lots of TLDs in a
> > > short to medium
> > > > term" approach. That is the position that is being
> > argued against;
> > > > the phrase "100 immediately" is just a tag phrase labeling the
> > > > position you advocate. It is not a strawman.
> > > >
> > > > More disturbing, however, is your implicit assumption that
> > > nothing can
> > > > go wrong, and that we really should press on regardless of
> > > what we may
> > > > find from our first experience. The subtext of your
> > > position is "add
> > > > TLDs and damn the consequences".
> > >
> > > --
> > > m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> > > syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
> > >
> > >
> >
>