Re: [wg-c] re: Choosing the intial testbed

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 23-Mar-2000 James Love wrote:
>    Recognizing that the ICANN proceedure requires postal addresses,
> receipts of both email and postal mail, and a pretty good audit trial to
> check, if one was so inclined to check.  

You are suggesting limiting this vote to the 5,000 approved ICANN "members?"

Please.  First of all, this will not be anywhere NEAR ready in the foreseeable
future.  Secondly, this is nowhere NEAR a solution for polling the "Internet
Community."    

The delay issue is a real one.  One we are all frustrated with, and one which
will cause any proposal to lose a LOT of support.  We have delayed way too long
as it is.  There are right ways to do this without trying to wait for something
that some people think is "better" to come along.

There is no effective way to run a poll like you suggest.  I could own that
poll with a small and simply script written in less than 30 minutes, and
probably work around any auditing you might be doing.  And I'm not as advanced
a programmer as many of the other people who are on tap to companies who have a
real vested financial interest in the outcome (unlike me).   They could
probably do it better, faster, and with less chance of detection.

If you have a complete and full solution, that includes how it would be paid
for, controlled, monitored, etc, then it might be worthy of consideration
(though I still oppose even the concept).  But without any of that, this isn't
a serious or worthwhile proposition. 

Quite simply there is no reason to have the TLD and Registry be seperated in
such a fashion.  People keep saying "lets not create another NSI."  Spare me,
thats the worst argument I have seen.  The NSI "situation" was created by there
being NO competitive gTLD registries at all for such a long time.  NSI got away
with WAY overcharging for a service that they were the sole source for.   They
had absolutely no incentive to innovate or otherwise enhance their offerings or
operations.  This will not be true for new gTLD registries, who already have to
compete with companies offering com/net/org domains for under $20/yr and some
under $15/yr( and even a handful at under $10/yr).   They will have to compete,
both by having competitive prices, and by offering innovative bundled services,
competing on policies, etc.  The companies will actually have to look at how
their policies will effect their ability to market, since they won't have a
captive market, like NSI had.

We are wasting way too much time with people who are using the "NSI Situation"
to justify forcing an economic and policy model onto all gTLDs when the FTC
report clearly shows that there is absolutely no advantage to that, and indeed
disadvantages would occur (lack of innovation, etc, are things the report
mentions specifically).


- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE42X4J8zLmV94Pz+IRAi7lAJ9OAfBSNRMnJAsTuzMXlLBsFv7F+gCfcNRf
5uqmKpmbWMwju44LuG7VI0g=
=hneU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----