Re[2]: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version

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

Hello Stefan,

Sunday, June 17, 2001, 8:00:02 PM, Stefan Probst wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly.

> Or in other words: I still fail to understand, why registrations in the 
> root have to be handled that *much* differently than those in the gTLDs.

> Regarding fees:
> I think a fixed amount per SLD is ok.
> There will be TLDs, which cover a broad spectrum with millions of 
> financially wealthy registrants, but I see no reason, why there shouldn't 
> be also smaller ones, or ones which cater for parts of the world where 
> people are not as rich as in the US.

> Why should .museum or .coop or .humanrights pay same much like .biz or .travel?
> Or .hmong (a tribe in Vietnam)(latter TLD preferably registered in UTF-8)?

I agree Stefan.  But you have to remember, we had to fight tooth and
nail to get a TESTBED expansion done.

And as always a testbed must have higher standards and barriers.  It
HAS to succeed, and those of us who support future aggressive
expansion have to recognize that ANYTHING that helps ensure that each
and every one of the approved TLDs will succeed in their respective
areas is something we should support, even if silently, and then when
the concept has proven itself, and the sky didn't fall, and AT&T
didn't have to file 100,000 lawsuits, that we can argue MUCH more
effectively for a more liberal set of requirements.

But, we need to recognize that minimum technical, and by correlation
business and financial, standards MUST be in place, even in the
future.  In many bidding processes the check sent with the bid is a
cost of doing business, and it is essentially a gamble, like so many
other things in business are.  An application fee that helps cover the
costs, and also presents a reasonable barrier to help keep the riff
raff out (which do bring a destabilizing factor with them), is a good
thing, and if you don't agree with that, then you may just have to say
it is a necessary evil.

Since our chairs don't seem interested in providing any leadership, I
suggest a summary of the things we agree on be prepared.  In my long
experience working in informal grounds, I've found that his is
helpful as a starting point for future discussions, and keeps us from
covering the same territory over and over again.  It is the kind of
thing that Danny and Patrick should have started doing a long long
time ago.

May I suggest the following: (Please speak up with what you disagree,
and feel free to present your own list, and then we can merge those
things that do not meet with substantive opposition.

1) A completely open free for all in creation of new TLDs is not
something we can support as a stable manner of operations

2) TLD selections should reflect a diversity in business models, this
to include issues such as diversity in the registry/registrar split
policy on a case by case basis where the TLD operator presents a
strong case for such a model.

3) The TLD operator should be required to meet certain minimum
financial commitments, as well as a strong business model and plan,
including a healthy fiscal forecast.  Note I am not getting specific
here, as what may be fiscally healthy for an open gTLD may not be for
a specific chartered TLD available only to Systematic Entomologists
for instance (.bug anyone?  :)

4) Reasonable "failure" plans should exist.  For example, the registry
agrees to assign to ICANN all rights to the registry and property
associated with the registry (for reassignment) in the event they are
unwilling or unable for any reason to continue operating the registry,
and agree to cooperate FULLY in any transition.  Data escrow is
MANDATORY.  A performance/failure bond of a size reasonable to cover
transition costs perhaps?

5) A complete business plan to cover the full technical implementation
for the registry and for the development of the registry.

Ok, I've kick started this, toss some darts at it, or contribute your
own.


-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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