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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

WXW and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> 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.

  No fighting was necessary or advisable...  Other existing testbeds were already
underway long before ICANN ever got one started.  Data form a few of those
was and still is available....  Some of these other testbeds have been up
and running sense 1991....

>
>
> And as always a testbed must have higher standards and barriers.

  No.  A testbed should reflect what is or will likely be used in a normal
operational situation.  Any thing else is not realistic....  And will likely not
reflect actual operational conditions and results.  This is misleading and
notoriously detrimental....

> 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.

  Liberal sets of requirements are not the issue.  Cost's are at least
one of the issues.  Real costs, not made up ones such as ICANN has
educated.  Suits are always a possibility in almost any business.  Let them
who wish to file law suits do so.  I am always prepared to deal with them.
Any good business person is or should be.  Cost associated with legal
situations can never be accurately determined in advance.  Insurance
can help to offset such possibilities, but cannot prevent them or the
possible damage they may do.

>
>
> But, we need to recognize that minimum technical, and by correlation
> business and financial, standards MUST be in place, even in the
> future.

  To the extent that this can be reasonable assessed, yes.  But that is
not going to be the same in every case with a TLD registry.  So using
a cookie cutter high bar approach is not reasonable as a result.

>  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.

  A gamble is dependent on how much of a gamble is necessary.  Using a
single amount to determine this is not something ICANN should be or is
mandated to do.  That is for the business plan of the potential registry
to asses for themselves.  Not ICANN..

>  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.

  Riff raff?  Define that or what might be "Riff Raff".  If you can't, than
it doesn't reasonable apply.

>
>
> 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.

  Not a bad idea here...

>
>
> 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

  This is badly stated. So I suggest a rewording as follows:

1.) Open and low up from barriers in the creation of new TLDs is not
something we can support as a stable manner of operations

Yes...

>
>
> 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.

No.  ICANN should not be in the business of determining business
models for TLD registries or registrars.

>
>
> 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?  :)

  No.  Again ICANN should not be setting financial requirements of any kind.
ICANN should not be involved in setting business models either (As above)...

>
>
> 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?

  Yes...

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

  No.  Implementation yes.  Development, no...  Note: this should
have been two separate questions or points for reopens...

>
>
> 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

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