Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Dot Web had that much. Didn't help them. $50,000 upon APPROVAL is viable
William. $50,000 for an application fee IS ridiculous. Also ICANN is not set
up to decide if a company's business plan is solid enough or not. There own
business plan is in question. If they had to apply according to their
applicvation standards they couldn't even run a TLD let alone a root.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 4:55 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall


> Hello Jefsey,
>
> Tuesday, June 05, 2001, 4:29:17 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > All boils down to Mike Roberts'  K$ 50. Would the iCANN have
> > carry its job as a per a decent reading of the WhitePaper/ByLaws
> > getting sponsoring as an educational, research or charity service
> > to the community and made TLD registration paid at cost ($ 20
> > as documented by the Linux community) it would financially
> > flourish and none of the current problems would exist.
>
> If you want to have any credibility to your arguments, Jefsey, you
> have to at least make an effort to be realistic.
>
> Personally, I don't find the $50,000 application fee to be as
> excessive as others have.
>
> But a minimum set of both business, financial, and technical standards
> must exist, and before granting the application, those issues must be
> reviewed, investigated, followed up on, etc.
>
> The costs of doing that are not cheap, and an application fee such as
> that does serve a purpose in setting a minimum standard for financial
> solvency.  If the $50,000 fee is too much, then perhaps that company
> is not well suited financially to be running a registry.
>
> While I don't see the $50,000 as necessarily excessive, I would be
> open to backing a proposal for a lower fee in the next round provided
> that a REALISTIC fee was proposed, and all of the other issues were
> addressed (minimum standards).
>
> The alt.root people don't particularly like that argument, since in
> their book being able to get one person to add a couple lines of
> config in a nameserver has been their only requirement, but it would
> help their credibility if they would recognize that minimum standards
> must exist, and help to come up with a REASONABLE set of standards.
>
> If a company doesn't have $250,000 or more in liquid capital or line
> of credit, I don't think they should even be considered.  They lack
> the necessary financial means to insure the operation and development
> of their registry.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html