Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1478
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, October 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1478

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:00:02 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> > On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand
it
> > is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be
> > answerable to their local community (and to their individual
governments),
> > not to a centralized body.
>
> Absolutely true.

Absolutely untrue - the contrast only exists if both conditions are true.
gTLD Operators don't have a free-hand.

> issue, and request for careful considerations: there are a lot
> of legal and business aspects, which are of interest to all governments.

...of interest to all stakeholders. Interest != Control.

> The question then arises: are that $67 million per annum collected
> by gTLD Registries from the non-US Registrants a tax?
> I guess some users and now governments feel concerned by something
> which looks like a planetary tax.
> Why ICANN maintain that enormous $6 cap fee per domain name
> in extra-judiciary international space? Why ICANN does not use
> that money collected worldwide for the benefit of international
> domain name Registrants?

This might just be the most ridiculous line of reasoning that I've seen for
a long time. Either that or a very poor attempt at fear-mongering. Which is
it?

- -rwr

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

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 17:31:57 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

Jaenette and all assembly members,

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> On 18 Oct 2002, at 11:38, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> I agree with most parts of your description. I am not convinced though it would be the
> best solution if the ITU stepped in and took over the control over the root.

  We at INEGroup agree with Jaenette here as well.  However it would
seem to me that there is not reason why the ITU could not set up their
own set of Root servers and structure and than interface those with
the Legacy/USG root servers.  Of course ICANN would object and
likely attempt to block such an interface.

>
>
> What I find really unfortunate is that the idea of self governance is linked to the
> oversight of one government.

  Agreed fully here!  And because of this the MoU and White Paper
clearly states that the stakeholders/users should do this oversight
as well as be in control collectively as a At-Large body.  However
ICANN has played games with this to the extent of thwarting
such a structure...

> What is necessary I think is some form of political
> framework that would enable a new attempt of self-governance. ICANN's failure and
> incapability of reforming itself in a legitimate way does not prove that self-governance
> is impossible alltogether. ICANN's failure does prove though that both stricter and more
> comprehensive forms of accountability are necessary. By comprehensive I mean more than just
> one government should oversee names and numbers administration.  Ideally, this could be
> achieved by a convention that restricts the role of governments to a minimum of
> sanity, fairness and similar types of checks. Such a convention would provide the political
> space for a new attempt governance model that aims to manage without direct government
> intervention. Btw, "regulation of self-regulation" has become quite a popular strategy
> recently.
>

  If I understand you right here Jaenette, you are talking about the market
doing the "Regulation of self-regulation"?  If so, I would tend to agree.
The only difficulty is what form would such a structure be.  ???  I believe
that a At-Large structure open to any and all stakeholders/users is the
only fair and legitimate way this could be achieved.  Some market forces
or segments, such as the present constituencies of the IPC and the BC
seem bent of not allowing for this, as they choose to seek a strangle
hold on the majority of control.  This of course will fail, and in some
areas and ways has already failed.  It is only that the ICANN BoD
and staff have yet to recognize this failure or refuse to...

>
> Jeanette
>
> > I'm not more versed than you, and do not want to correct you, but will
> > nevertheless propose a different reading.
> > What the ITU is doing is simply to encourage its members to participate
> > *directly* in the management of the process. This does not mean that the ITU
> > wants to candidate itself to replace ICANN (although it is not impossible
> > that some people in the ITU might think so).
> >
> > But maybe the interesting question is, rather than arguing again over
> > "bureaucracy", "government vs. private sector", and the usual amenities,
> > "why is this position different from the previous position?", namely the
> > encouragement to participation in the entities that manage the process.
> > My answer is simply that it is because ICANN has failed to address some of
> > the concerns of the members of the ITU, and therefore the ITU is encouraging
> > its members to take direct action to correct the problem.
> >
> > Some of you might remember the comments of Wilkinson and Twomey about
> > representation in ICANN, I think it was in Yokohama, but I might be wrong.
> > They both stated that, should ICANN fail in providing a mechanism for
> > representation of the individuals (the discussion was about AtLarge
> > Directors), governments would have stepped in.
> > Some oldcomers might also remember that this was exactly my point in some
> > discussions at the times of the IFWP, and in the creation of ICANN: let's
> > try to have self-governance, but be aware that we better get it right the
> > first time (and therefore be prepared to compromise for the sake of broader
> > consensus rather than to push one specific solution upon other unwilling
> > stakeholders), because we might not have a second chance.
> > Well, here we go.
> >
> > But this, as I said, does not mean that the ITU will take over. It only
> > means that the governments cannot accept a situation in which a supposedly
> > private entity, de-facto run by one of the Governments of the world, has the
> > power to rule over the Internet world-wide.
> > ICANN is exaggerating now, and is stretching the thing too far.
> > On one hand it seems incapable to curb the monopolistic/oligopolistic
> > ambitions of some powerful actors, and on the other hand is denying
> > representativity to the less powerful, like individual users.
> > On one hand it allows free hand to the major gTLD, and on the other hand it
> > is trying to impose unnecessary rules to the ccTLDs, that should be
> > answerable to their local community (and to their individual governments),
> > not to a centralized body.
> >
> > But where do we go from here?
> > It was Karl, if I remember correctly, who advocated that there was no need
> > to have just one organization that fulfills all tasks and duties of the
> > current ICANN. We could have a "functional" breakdown allocating tasks to
> > different entities (existing ones, or created "ad hoc").
> > If this is the way to go, it might well be that one or more functions be
> > delegated to the ITU. For instance, the assignment of IP addresses, that
> > seems similar to the management of the frequency spectrum or the telephone
> > system, and seems to be perfectly adequate for an International Treaty
> > Organization. Or the management of the A-root, a typical thing that should
> > be protected by international law, and not be left under the authority of
> > one Government.
> > Of course, other tasks might be completely out of scope for the ITU, or even
> > for any other similar organization, and should be left to a different body
> > or mechanism.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Best regards
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
> > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
> >
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:20:04 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:54:03 +0000, "Roberto Gaetano"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>.int is somehow different.
>I am convinced that some cleanup will be done. It is sufficient to observe 
>the care that is given now to award a name in .int, as can be seen, for 
>instance, in the reconsideration request 
>http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-1.htm presented in the 
>2002-08-23 Board meeting (minutes at 
>http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm).
>
>While it is obvious that this costly procedure can be, and will be, applied 
>for the few names in .int, it cannot, and will not, be applied for the large 
>.org.

As a point of principle I don't believe any registrant who is
operating in good faith should lose their domain name due to
retrospective policy changes.

A while back school.nz became unmoderated which upset quite a few in
the .nz community including myself and we got some registrations such
as sex.school.nz.  While I advocated we should turn school.nz back to
moderated I think those who got in while it was unmoderated should not
be penalised for the failings of the policy setting body.

So good idea to tighten up criteria for .int but kicking out current
registrants would set a fairly nasty thin end of the wedge principle.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 12:44:48 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

- --=======48D25B56=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5FA03D58; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 00:00 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
>This might just be the most ridiculous line of reasoning that I've seen 
>for a long time. Either that or a very poor attempt at fear-mongering. 
>Which is it?

Dear Ross,
I just computed that I personnally paid more than $ 70.000 to Verisign 
those last years to support common interest projects (this is personnal 
matters but I trust you enough to disclose details to you if you so wish, 
and being in that trade you will understand quickly). This represents 
roughly 3000 DNs for various stages societal projects for France, Europe 
and developping countries. Some I gave up due to that cost. And I have good 
rates.

I currently duplicate than domain names and run much more of them, getting 
exactly the same service on my own machines under the experimental dot-root 
project and experimental ULDs for a cost of $ 3000 a year (that machines 
[some being for free] support a lot of other services offsetting their cost)

You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am 
interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family pocket. 
What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?
jfc

- --=======48D25B56=======--

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:32:42 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am
> interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family pocket.
> What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?

It is the cost of the domain name. Sheesh. Have they thrown out capitalism
over in Europe? If you don't want to pay, then use the IP address. If you
don't want to use an IP address, find a TLD that better suits your needs. It
has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> On 00:00 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >This might just be the most ridiculous line of reasoning that I've seen
> >for a long time. Either that or a very poor attempt at fear-mongering.
> >Which is it?
>
> Dear Ross,
> I just computed that I personnally paid more than $ 70.000 to Verisign
> those last years to support common interest projects (this is personnal
> matters but I trust you enough to disclose details to you if you so wish,
> and being in that trade you will understand quickly). This represents
> roughly 3000 DNs for various stages societal projects for France, Europe
> and developping countries. Some I gave up due to that cost. And I have
good
> rates.
>
> I currently duplicate than domain names and run much more of them, getting
> exactly the same service on my own machines under the experimental
dot-root
> project and experimental ULDs for a cost of $ 3000 a year (that machines
> [some being for free] support a lot of other services offsetting their
cost)
>
> You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am
> interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family pocket.
> What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 21:15:23 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

- --=======7FB156C8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-5FA03D58; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 17:32 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
>It has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.

This would be a good point enough should the domain name had not be 
confused with the mnemonic. You perfectly know that everyone around the 
world first resolves a mnemonic into mnemonic.com as a domain name.

That would be a good point should that confusion did not result from 
ICANN's policy though the lack of new TLDs.

Now, Ross, what is the capitalism to do with this? I have allways been 
explained that Internet was an academic network of military origin and that 
names had a rate helping to support the cost of managing and developping 
the network?  I certainly observed that bluntly a fee became a discounted 
price but if was after I started using that domain names of mine. I 
genuinely believed when I started that Internet was democraticaly managed 
(I even rad the bylaws of ICANN) and that $100/two years was the real cost 
of the Internet operations under the control of the USG.

I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public 
service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same 
as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly lesson 
of English -).

But may I ask a question? What was the capital investment?
If you go on the ICANN site, you will find the IANA agreement where the USG 
sells the IANA function to ICAN for less than $ 10.000. Means that I have 
paid 7 times the price Internets. Even by tough capitalistic standard it 
would be a good deal for the seller :-)

As an US tax payer, are not surprised that the USG Might sell for such a 
low price something generating so much revenue. I really think WRSN could 
thank Mr. DeWitt from Eindhoven, who I suppose never got a cent for having 
initially coined "com".
jfc

- --=======7FB156C8=======--

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:57:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN pulls a fast one over WLS??

Hello,

In the "preliminary" minutes of the August 23rd board meeting, the
minutes stated:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23aug02.htm

"(a) Subscriptions under the WLS in the .com and .net top-level domains
shall not be taken by VeriSign Global Registry Services until at least
six months have elapsed after implementation of the Redemption Grace
Period for all deleted names in those top-level domains;" 

In particular, the time stated is "at least SIX months".

Now, checking the final minutes, they state:

http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-23aug02.htm

"(a) Subscriptions under the WLS in the .com and .net top-level domains
shall not be taken by VeriSign Global Registry Services until at least
three months have elapsed after implementation of the Redemption Grace
Period for all deleted names in those top-level domains;"

Notice the words mysteriously changed to "at least THREE months".

Something smells fishy. Explanations? Karl? You were there at both
meetings, presumably.

Astonished,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 10:26:36 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:32:42 -0400, "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am
>> interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family pocket.
>> What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?
>
>It is the cost of the domain name. Sheesh. Have they thrown out capitalism
>over in Europe? If you don't want to pay, then use the IP address. If you
>don't want to use an IP address, find a TLD that better suits your needs. It
>has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.

The trouble is that ICANN is artificially restricting the supply of
TLDs thus preventing competition between monopoly gTLD registries.  If
ICANN opened up the gTLD space further than what you say would have
more validity.

AT present if you want a global website in an unmoderated gTLD your
only choice is Verisign or .info (which is hardly commercial).  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:29:57 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Profit = Tax (was  ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later)

> "It is the cost of the domain name."
>
> It is absolutely NOT the cost of the domain name.  It is the price of the
> domain name.

The cost of the domain name depends completely on who you are. For Sky
Dayton, the cost of a domain name was $7.5 million USD. For resellers, it is
as low as $7, for the registries, who knows. The point is that $6 is
absolutely the cost of a dotCOM registration - for registrars.

> The cost is US$6.00.  The profit margin as a result of the
> spread between the price and the cost is indeed a tax because the cost is
> capped.

The difference between a suppliers cost and a suppliers price has always
been the penalty payed by free market participants. Why should this be any
different? Unless of course you are advocating a wholesale shift to a
socialized DNS.

> Some might call this "tax" artificially inflated.  If I have to
> pay $1,000 for a used domain name because there is nothing comparable that
> I can buy new, I am being taxed or penalized or whatever one cares to call
> it.  This is the status quo that benefits a few rather than the majority
> for no DNS technical reason.

Huh? You are being penalized because there is a secondary market? Last time
I checked, there were more than 250 alternatives to dotCOM. If you are
paying $1000 for domain names because there are no reasonable alternatives,
one might be inclined to think that you aren't looking hard enough.

>
> "Have they thrown out capitalism over in Europe?"
>
> It's been thrown out in the U.S too.  Otherwise the cost would not be
> capped in today's "competitive" DNS landscape.

Would you prefer that the price of domain names were solely priced by the
monopoly providers? I'm sure that VGRS would *love* to reprice their
inventory at "market" prices. Sometimes, in order to ensure a free and fair
market, certain checks and balances need to be artificially introduced. The
price cap is a perfectly reasonable market control.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Fassett" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:08 PM
Subject: Profit = Tax (was ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later)

> "It is the cost of the domain name."
>
> It is absolutely NOT the cost of the domain name.  It is the price of the
> domain name.  The cost is US$6.00.  The profit margin as a result of the
> spread between the price and the cost is indeed a tax because the cost is
> capped.  Some might call this "tax" artificially inflated.  If I have to
> pay $1,000 for a used domain name because there is nothing comparable that
> I can buy new, I am being taxed or penalized or whatever one cares to call
> it.  This is the status quo that benefits a few rather than the majority
> for no DNS technical reason.
>
> "Have they thrown out capitalism over in Europe?"
>
> It's been thrown out in the U.S too.  Otherwise the cost would not be
> capped in today's "competitive" DNS landscape.
>
> Ray
> --
>
>
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:38:20 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

"The trouble is that ICANN is artificially restricting the supply of
TLDs thus preventing competition between monopoly gTLD registries.  If
ICANN opened up the gTLD space further than what you say would have
more validity.

AT present if you want a global website in an unmoderated gTLD your
only choice is Verisign or .info (which is hardly commercial). "

And who buys domain names because they are part of an unmoderated namespace?
You are fabricating purchasing behaviors that simply don't exist in the real
world. People buy domain in TLDs that they can identify with. They are happy
to play by the rules that the TLD operates under because they want to be
identified with that TLD. If anything, there are probably more "rules" in
the "unmoderated" TLDs than there are in the "moderated" ones. Check out the
dotCOM standard registration agreement that is outlined in the registrar
agreements - they are anything but brief and totally represent a level of
"moderation" similar  to those found in the country namespaces like dotCA
etc.

I completely agree that the namespace needs to be opened up, but you aren't
moving the discussion forward with the fallacies that you present. Rather,
lets start with one really good reason why we should open the namespace up -
because we can and there is *no* good reason not to. For a dozen or so
equally good reasons, check out Brett Faussets treatise on the subject (
http://www.lextext.com/newTLDdiscussionpaper.html ). But please, don't mire
the discussion with the bizarre logic that have been floating around this
weekend. If I didn't know any better, I'd chalk all of this up to full-moon
fever.

Thanks,

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DPF" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:32:42 -0400, "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> You may understand that I fully share Elisabeth's feelings. But I am
>> interested in your justification of that $ 70.000 out of my family
pocket.
>> What is it, if not an US tax? Loot?
>
>It is the cost of the domain name. Sheesh. Have they thrown out capitalism
>over in Europe? If you don't want to pay, then use the IP address. If you
>don't want to use an IP address, find a TLD that better suits your needs.
It
>has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.

The trouble is that ICANN is artificially restricting the supply of
TLDs thus preventing competition between monopoly gTLD registries.  If
ICANN opened up the gTLD space further than what you say would have
more validity.

AT present if you want a global website in an unmoderated gTLD your
only choice is Verisign or .info (which is hardly commercial).

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:50:53 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> This would be a good point enough should the domain name had not be
> confused with the mnemonic. You perfectly know that everyone around the
> world first resolves a mnemonic into mnemonic.com as a domain name.

I'm not sure that I completely agree. Let's assume that this is the case for
the sake of arguement. Why then do we need any new TLDs? Why not just fold
the entire namespace into dotCOM - imagine the customer confusion that dotFR
is creating simply by its very existence.

> Now, Ross, what is the capitalism to do with this? I have allways been
> explained that Internet was an academic network of military origin and
that
> names had a rate helping to support the cost of managing and developping
> the network?

The network never has been supported in any way by domain name
registrations. Names used to be freely available during a period of time
when it didn't make sense to charge for them because of scale. It was only
with the advent of the web and the brushfire adoption of the Internet by
regular folk that charging for domain names became an option. Even then, the
cost of registrations was only established to cover the cost of providing
the registration services - a model that persists until today.

> I
> genuinely believed when I started that Internet was democraticaly managed
> (I even rad the bylaws of ICANN) and that $100/two years was the real cost
> of the Internet operations under the control of the USG.

Your perception sharply differs from mine. I'm not aware of any time that
the Internet has been governed democratically - scratch that, I'm not aware
of any time that the Internet has been governed. The DNS != the Internet.
The registration services provided by SRI, GSI, NSI, SAIC, Verisign etc. !=
the DNS. The revenue generated from the registration of names has nothing to
do with the operation of anything except the registration of names.

> I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public
> service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same
> as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly
lesson
> of English -).

I view it slightly differently - there is a healthy tension between the
public good and the needs of a free market. Fostering competition is a
vastly different exercise than enforcing capitalism - the latter would
likely require an army of soldiers, where the former likely requires an army
of lawyers. I fully believe that the market created through the
re-regulation processes that ICANN has implemented has furthered the public
good. Things could certainly be more streamlined and efficient, but that is
where a healthy policy development process becomes key. Without that healthy
process, the tension between the public good and the needs of the capitalist
players can become imbalanced.

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] ITU Resolution 102 -- four years later

> On 17:32 19/10/02, Ross Wm. Rader said:
> >It has never been a dotcom world and its certainly not a gTLD world.
>
> This would be a good point enough should the domain name had not be
> confused with the mnemonic. You perfectly know that everyone around the
> world first resolves a mnemonic into mnemonic.com as a domain name.
>
> That would be a good point should that confusion did not result from
> ICANN's policy though the lack of new TLDs.
>
>
> Now, Ross, what is the capitalism to do with this? I have allways been
> explained that Internet was an academic network of military origin and
that
> names had a rate helping to support the cost of managing and developping
> the network?  I certainly observed that bluntly a fee became a discounted
> price but if was after I started using that domain names of mine. I
> genuinely believed when I started that Internet was democraticaly managed
> (I even rad the bylaws of ICANN) and that $100/two years was the real cost
> of the Internet operations under the control of the USG.
>
> I was probably too much accustomed to the European notion of "public
> service". So, if I read you correctly "to foster competition" is the same
> as "to enforce capitalism"? If you say so I will accept it (a costly
lesson
> of English -).
>
> But may I ask a question? What was the capital investment?
> If you go on the ICANN site, you will find the IANA agreement where the
USG
> sells the IANA function to ICAN for less than $ 10.000. Means that I have
> paid 7 times the price Internets. Even by tough capitalistic standard it
> would be a good deal for the seller :-)
>
> As an US tax payer, are not surprised that the USG Might sell for such a
> low price something generating so much revenue. I really think WRSN could
> thank Mr. DeWitt from Eindhoven, who I suppose never got a cent for having
> initially coined "com".
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN pulls a fast one over WLS??

On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> In the "preliminary" minutes of the August 23rd board meeting, the
> minutes stated:
... 
> In particular, the time stated is "at least SIX months".
... 
> Now, checking the final minutes, they state:
... 
> Notice the words mysteriously changed to "at least THREE months".

The final minutes *do* indicate that the time period was changed to six 
months.  (The resolution shown both before and after the various 
amendments, so it's understandable that one could get confused.)

		--karl--

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

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 15:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN pulls a fast one over WLS??

Ahhh, ok. Thanks Karl, I didn't realize that it had been amended at the
very bottom of the final minutes, so indeed it was confusing. 6 months
it is (until it's overturned).

Any word on the reconsideration request and appeals by Dotster? Does
ICANN have a time limit to respond? (not sure if you're on the
Reconsideration Committee)

Take care,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

- --- Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> > In the "preliminary" minutes of the August 23rd board meeting, the
> > minutes stated:
> ... 
> > In particular, the time stated is "at least SIX months".
> ... 
> > Now, checking the final minutes, they state:
> ... 
> > Notice the words mysteriously changed to "at least THREE months".
> 
> The final minutes *do* indicate that the time period was changed to
> six 
> months.  (The resolution shown both before and after the various 
> amendments, so it's understandable that one could get confused.)
> 
> 		--karl--

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1478
*************************