Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

John,

I respectfull disagree with you wholeheartedly.

The fact is, that the DNS market is UNREGULATED, and that
entrepeneurs such as CORE, IOdesign, Iperdome, Name.Space,
et.al. have invested capital and built infrustructure DOES entitle
them ALL rights to operate the TLDs that they are accepting
registrations under.  Neither this WG, ICANN, the US Government,
(or any government) has the authority to forclose on those
businesses, or impose any regulatory actions on those businesses
absent such regulatory structures.

The issue of access to the ROOT comes down to a matter of
ANTITRUST, since the ROOT is an ESSENTIAL FACILITY, and
the law states that access to an essential facility MUST BE
GRANTED ON A NON-DISCRIMINATORY BASIS (read the
Sherman Act!).  ICANN, should they eventually be given
custodianship over the ROOT, will have to face that fact
as they are subject to compliance with the antitrust laws
(as clearly stated in the White Paper).

A workable solution must be reached between all interested
parties in order to avoid an avalance of costly and unnecessary
litigation, which will be inevitable if this group, and ICANN fails
to reach an acceptable solution for adding the EXISTING NEW
TLDS to the root in an expeditious and reasonable manner.

Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.
http://name.space
http://name-space.com


>> Hi John Charles,
>>
>> >1-what rights does the registry have vis-a-vis ICANN and the particular TLD
>> >  it is doing the registry work for?
>>
>> A subset of this is - what right to existing registrees have?
>>
>> CORE Registrars have for some time sold (and continue
>> to sell) new TLDs predicated on the assertion that
>> their customers will get first-come, first-served access
>> to those TLDs.  It's not clear how these rights are resolved
>> vis-a-vis eachother or vis-a-vis non-CORE registrars.
>> --tony
>
>*PERSONAL OPINION 100% FOLLOWS*
>All depends what you call existing registrees. As far as I'm concerned,
>anything sold by CORE registrars (I'm not talking about current sales of
>com/net/org by CORE registrars) in the gTLDs that CORE expected to have
>introduced is just vaporware. They built on *assumptions*, not facts. These
>assumptions were by them. Same goes for IOD & ".web" or Iperdome and ".per".
>
>I can collect all the names of all my friends, create a database, setup a
>DNS server with "smith.friend" "doe.friend" and a thousand more (being
>optimistic on what I call a friend here!), and suddenly claim I have
>existing registrants under my lovely ".friend" TLD and demand it be
>introduced and given to me.
>
>I see all of those registrations as 100% pure speculation. Truth of the
>matter, I have yet to see ANYONE use a ".web" address, a ".firm" address or
>a ".whatever" address apart from those under TLDs in the IANA/ICANN roots.
>When I say "use" I mean in a wide and external way. Sure that Karl can have
>customers deciding to use amongst themselves "something.prv", but they know
>what they get, they know what they have, and any other expectancy is just
>wishful thinking. Everyone is free to setup their own private name & number
>schemes.
>My office extension number is 106. I'd *love* (or maybe not, because I might
>get flooded, dunno) it to be possible for everyone in the world to dial
>"106" and my phone ring, but I understand perfectly that "106" just works
>within my company. Trying to push my internal numbering scheme upon the
>world is wishful thinking.
>I can sell telephone extensions to my PBX if I want (operator license
>considerations apart of course), and claim I have customers on my PBX. From
>there to say that because I have customers with extensions on my PBX, they
>MUST have world visibility in exactly the same way as they have it within my
>PBX is, as I've said, wishful thinking.
>
>I see some CORE registrars (note that each CORE registrar took the decision
>independently and with no advice from CORE on it), IOD & Iperdome as having
>jumped the gun in a rather bad way.
>I think that Iperdome managed to do the best effort at damage control by
>giving them all X.per.to (it IS that, isn't it?) domains, and not promising
>(directly or veiled) anything else. Dunno if IOD has done something similar.
>
>In short, as far as I'm concerned, they have no rights.
>
>Then again, it's probably well out of the scope of this WG to decide.
>
>Yours, John Broomfield.