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

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

If the money for funding was enough like the per domain registration I
suggested then why couldn't TLDs that were genuinely Nonprofit apply for a
waiver of the entry and per domain fees. The more commercial tlds would have
enough registrations to cover funding anyway.

There are these sorts of waivers for other things.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@opticom.v-nam.net>
To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Cc: "icann board address" <icann-board@icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version


> 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)?
>
> Stefan
>
> At 19:22 17.06.01 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> -------------------------
> >Chris and all,
> >
> >NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, look. I am not suggesting every TLD in every root should be
included by
> > > ICANN. What I am saying is that ICANN has not set any true standards
for
> > > what a TLD operator must work by. They made personal judgement calls
in the
> > > selection process that had nothing to do with any standard criteria
for
> > > selection.
> >
> >   I also agree that not every TLD suggested should be included either in
> >the Legacy/USG roots.  I also agree that as set of minimum standards
> >need to be set for how and what qualifies ANY potential TLD registry
> >can have it's proposed TLD entered into the Legacy/USG roots, and
> >that those decisions and standards should be agreed upon and determined
> >by the participating stakeholders as is outlined in the White Paper and
> >MoU.  This is where the ICANN BoD and Staff have failed to meet
> >their mandate in their contractual obligations with the DOC/NTIA.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > First create exact standards for which a TLD Operator would need to
> > meet for
> > > inclusion.
> >
> >   Yes!  And these exact standards should be minimum and determined by
> >ANY and ALL participating Stakeholders right here in the DNSO as is
> >mandated in the ICANN Bylaws...  This is not being done presently...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > They give a grace perios for dot biz for IP interests to get their
domains
> > > before anyone else. Why not set up a time period for all tld owners
who
> > > currently hold tlds in other roots but wish to be included in the
legacy
> > > root to meet the set standards.
> >
> >   Yes, exactly!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the reason is then Tucows and other Companies that are let's
say
> > > ICANN-Friendly could not then duplicate those tlds that met the
standards
> > > for inclusion.
> >
> >   Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > There does not need to be a $50,000 fee to be qualified for inclusion.
> >
> >   Absolutely right.  A processing fee of much less should be sufficient.
> >And a lottery process to determine whom and what TLD's are added to the
> >Legacy/USG roots is not a fair and open process...
> >
> > > Let
> > > $1 per domain name registration in the included tlds fund ICANN
entirely.
> > > Then ICANN won't have to worry about funding and if they are beholden
to
> > > anyone for their finances it would be the users who register domain
names.
> >
> >   This could be used as a method, but I would prefer a fixed processing
> >fee that is paid one time bu the potential registry.  As ICANN is a
> >non-profit 501 c(3) corp. you method here Chris is problematic...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't care what any techie says. This is not a technical issue
except
> > > where maybe the IETF help set the technical requirements for operating
a
> > > TLD. It is a social and political issue that ICANN needs to resolve
and
> > this
> > > is NOT difficult to do.
> >
> >  Technopolitics seems to to have driven the ICANN BOD and staff.  Tail
> >wagging the dog sort of thing...  The IETF is intertwined in this.  As
such
> >it's judgments are being increasingly questions and for good reason...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The users are more than happy to fund ICANN. We don't need the IP
interests
> > > or the Corporate money. Take the number of domains filed in one year x
$1
> > > and ICANN has more than enough to give itself those nice fat raises.
> >
> >   This is where I think you are mistaken.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 28,869,097 domains registered as of March 2001. That is a lot of
money. It
> > > is not a tax no matter how one might try to label it. I think
organizations
> > > like the IDNO and others would endorse the plan.
> >
> >   I think you may be a bit premature here...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This gives current holders of tlds their chance to be included with no
harm
> > > to users or ICANN. They would have to meet a set of standards that
> > should be
> > > arrived at through a bottom up procedure THROUGH the DNSO using both
the
> > > @Large and the GA to work on it.
> >
> >   Agreed.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > But of course there will be reasons given why it isn't just this easy.
> > IT IS
> > > THIS EASY.
> >
> >   Yes of course...  And we all know why as well...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You see WXW and Dassa. I am not out to destroy ICANN. I am on the list
to
> > > help find a way ICANN can perform it's functions in the manner of a
> > > nonprofit org that represents the users not as it has been acting as a
for
> > > profit corp looking out for the IP Interests and the other corps. That
> > is an
> > > area where I am comfortable in stating an opinion about and more than
> > > qualified to do so.
> >
> >   WXW, Darryl (AKA Dessa) and others of their points of view, have
> >a problem with being open in their thought processes.  You just have
> >to deal with that as best you can, or ignore them all together....
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@higgs.com>
> > > To: "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org>
> > > Cc: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>; <webmaster@babybows.com>;
> > > <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 2:27 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Re: ICANN Policy -- revised version
> > >
> > > > At 09:17 AM 6/15/01 -0700, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >It seems, Milton, that academe has arrived at a new standard since
I
> > left
> > > > >two years ago. Anyone who agrees with you is "honest" and anyone
who
> > > > >disagrees is not ;-). Well, well!
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that would depend upon being able to back it up with
true
> > > > facts. Not this factually-inaccurate spin that Vint sells to CNN.
> > > >
> > > > >The basis for the statement that ICANN's policy is to support a
single
> > > > >authoritative root is extensively articulated in my document and
the
> > > > >references clearly cited. The White Paper, the Memorandum of
> > > > >Understanding, and the Articles of Incorporation give clear
> > indication of
> > > > >ICANN's Policy. They are ICANN's charter documents. I suggest you
read
> > > > >them again. They are not very hard to understand and their
statements
> > > with
> > > > >regard to an authoritative single root and to competing roots are
quite
> > > clear.
> > > >
> > > > It appears that short-sighted near-term policy overrides any sane
> > > long-term
> > > > response. Unfortunately, the consequences of such blind actions will
harm
> > > > the Internet far more than a sensible long-term policy.
> > > >
> > > > >My statement on ICANN Policy is not unilateral -- it is
well-grounded in
> > > > >the community processes that led to the White Paper and to the
formation
> > > > >of ICANN.
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to the coup that took the IAHC away from Postel?
Which
> > > > led to the hopelessly illegal sham called the gTLD-MOU? Which the
White
> > > > Paper stopped dead, only to be subverted by the very same people who
were
> > > > behind the gTLD-MOU?
> > > >
> > > > Hardly what I call a "well-grounded community process".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > >
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
>

--
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