Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #290
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 18 2001            Volume 01 : Number 290

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:54:07 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 12:40 PM
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|> I don't agree.  Non-competitive systems tend to lead to higher prices
|> and costs, and less efficiency.

Hi WX

That would depend on the structure used.  A number of the ccTLD's Registries
operate as non-commercial entities.  I see no evidence this has led to
inefficiencies or higher costs.  There is variation with the Registries as to
the costs.  I would like to see a cap put on the Registry fees.  By having a set
fee, the costs can not increase.

|> The domain industry is just that, an industry.  It needs to be guided
|> by the same types of influences other businesses do, and that includes
|> competitive forces.

I see the Registries as being a major part of the infrastructure, not as part of
the commercial interests.  At the Registrar level, competition and commercial
factors should be encouraged, this is the level it belongs, where the consumers
are.  If we follow your reasoning, ICANN should itself be a commercial entity.

|> With out the competitive factor, there is no driving force for
|> innovation and development that lead to lower costs and thus lower
|> prices, and other factors.

I've seen this argument raised a number of times but I still fail to see it in
practical examples.  Innovation and development can be driven without direct
commercial competition at the Registry level.  Competition and commercialisation
at the Registrar level will be as effective in driving innovation and
development.  Some forced funding from the Registry level would also be
effective in this regard.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 12:26:43 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Kent Crispin
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 12:00 PM
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 11:35:03AM +1100, Dassa wrote:
|> > I do not want to see TLD vs TLD competition.  I see the Registries as
|> > being a fundamental resource for the Internet community and would like
|> > to see them operated by non-commercial interests under strict guidelines
|> > developed by ICANN and the Internet community.  Competition should only
|> > need to be introduced at the Registrar level where the consumers are.
|>
|> Interestingly enough, I and many other people also felt this way.
|> Unfortunately, that battle was fought and lost long ago.

As they say, a battle does not a war make.  Such issues may always be revisited.
Battles may be fought again.  Especially on different ground.  The Internet has
changed over the years but we often see issues negated due to having been
discussed and discounted previously.  I contend that we are in a constant state
of flux and that no barriers exist to stop us from challenging the status quo.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 17 Mar 2001 19:52:17 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

Hello Joop,

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 6:22:07 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 15:23 17/03/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Hello Jefsey,
>>
>>Saturday, March 17, 2001, 10:32:11 AM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>
>>> I nominate
>>> -  Danny Younger e-mail: [email-masked] for Chair
>>> -  Patrick Corliss  e-mail: [email-masked] for co-Chair
>>
>>Jefsey, there is not two separate nomination processes for the Chair
>>and Co-Chair.
>>
>>The Co-Chair is elected in a separate second election from the
>>unelected candidates for Chair.
>>
>>Therefore, if you want Patrick to be considered for either position,
>>you should nominate him for Chair.
>>

> The candidates could make their acceptance conditional to being voted for
> as part of a ticket.
> Any other nominee can do this as well. (I accept the nomination, if people
> will vote for me as part of a Younger/Corliss ticket)

> There appears to be a general lack of will to discuss the current election
> rules, but in this way the candidates can create a ticket based approach
> themselves.
> If the voters do not like it, they will not vote for them. 

> Personally, I think that a ticket based approach is to the benefit of
> effective  GA Chairing and it is a pity that we do not have the time to
> discuss amending the election rules to achieve a better approach.

I don't agree that it is a better approach.  As a matter of fact, the
current rules spell out why the current approach is being taken.

I think that this concept was floated way too close to the current
election to be taken under consideration at this time.  If you want to
try and convince enough people that this system is superior to the
current one, you have time until the next election to do so.

I, however, do not believe this is a better approach.  Again you end
up with people possibly "Settling" for the best "combination" rather
than electing the two best possible candidates.

The combination is not nearly as important.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
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, 17 Mar 2001 19:54:35 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

Hello Jefsey,

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 5:42:11 PM, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear WXW,
> I though an average brain would understand that I nominate both of them

Watch it Jefsey. I'd hate to see you suspended at this vital stage....

> with the intent that people vote for Danny first and for Patrick afterward.

And if more people think Patrick best suited for Chair, he will get
elected.  The point is we have to follow our process.

As it is, Patrick is not a candidate for Co-Chair, since you did not
nominate him properly as a candidate for Chair, which is where the
co-chair pool of candidates will be chosen.

Trying to change the process by "default" is simply not acceptable.

We have a process, we need to stick to it, or risk losing the ability
to have this kind of input into who the GA chair will be.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
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, 17 Mar 2001 23:17:19 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

I'm not sure that you wouldn't find lots of even commercial support for the
registries to be non-profit...

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Draft Resolution

On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 11:35:03AM +1100, Dassa wrote:
> I do not want to see TLD vs TLD competition.  I see the Registries as
> being a fundamental resource for the Internet community and would like
> to see them operated by non-commercial interests under strict guidelines
> developed by ICANN and the Internet community.  Competition should only
> need to be introduced at the Registrar level where the consumers are. 

Interestingly enough, I and many other people also felt this way. 
Unfortunately, that battle was fought and lost long ago. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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
- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 15:20:47 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Delayed Email

Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> wrote:
On Sunday, March 18, 2001 1:50 PM (AEST)
Subject: [ga] Verisign Poll up in the Booth

> for some reason this message did not make it to the list:

According to my records the times (AEST) were stamped as follows:

                                        Sent                Received
Delay
ORIGINAL:                12:23 pm             14:58 pm            155 mins.
DUPLICATE:             13:50 pm             14:50 pm              60 mins.

So after nearly two and a half hours Joop desparched a duplicate posting.  The
original was received 8 minutes later.  The duplicate took an hour.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 17 Mar 2001 23:27:02 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

Darryl, thanks for your commentary. I think you and I are largely in
agreement...

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:40 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 8:36 AM
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> I'm interested in better understanding where the stakeholders are on
|> different perspectives: for instance, if the registry model  for TLDs are
|> based on "not for profit" models/assumptions, and the competition
|> essentially begins with the registrars,who are all allowed to (if
|> accredited) to register in all ICANN accredited registries), then the
number
|> of registrations in a particular registry is less relevant, it seems to
me.
|> There has to be some mechanism to prevent price gouging, etc. in this
model.
|> Otherwise, we'd see bad practices at the registry level, such as charging
|> different prices for different names to the registrars, who would pass
that
|> along to the user.  Competition among registry/TLDs doesn't seem to be
quite
|> the full answer.

I see the structure having a fixed price across all Registies, fixed by
ICANN.
There may be some diversity between TLD's to increase usage but personally I
would prefer to have a standard price across all.  I see it as a funding
mechanism for ICANN and for development.  The current price is $6 USD per
domain.  I would like to see it set at $4 USD.  $1 going directly to ICANN,
$1
going into a fund for research and development, the other $2 to remain with
the
Registry for operating costs and associated development.  There would not be
any
competition between Registries aside from promotion of the TLD they operate.

|> Some may disagree with me, but in fact, over time, some TLDs are likely
to
|> be more "used" than others.  There are a lot of factors to consider in
how
|> that evolves.  And, some TLDs may be (unfortunately) primarily/initially
|> filled with duplicate registrations from .com, since defensive
registrations
|> will be necessary to avoid consumer confusion, fraud, and trademark
|> dilution.  I see no relief from that in some TLDS.

We will continue to see the defensive registrations until such time as the
TLD's
become more numerous and diverse.  Each TLD also needs specific guidelines
as to
what type of registrations are permitted.    There will always be some TLD's
with limited numbers of registrations.  One of the reasons I wish to see the
Registries operated by non-commercial interest.  Otherwise we will only ever
have TLD's with a high commercial value associated with them.

|> We'll have to wait and see if in fact, new registrations dominate, or if
the
|> space is largely defensive registrations.

I believe the defensive registrations will drop off once the name space
occupies
a larger turf.

|> As new services evolve, and directories become more useable/available,
|> perhaps we'll see a move to more "friendly" names (longer, complete
words,
|> etc.)  That may also create new forms of expansion of the name space.

I see such directories etc as being another layer on top of the DNS.

|> However, in the meantime, of interest, and note, in fact, the present
|> approach in ICANN seems to also support the concept of "niche" TLDs, that
|> is, those who are likely to have a limited, but important group of
potential
|> registrants, such as in .museum, for instance.  This concept seems to
serve
|> the stakeholders by logical expansion of the name space, for stability,
|> usability, and minimized confusion by users, rather than to focus on
|> creating a registry as a money making endeavor for itself.

I see value in such niche TLD's.  The whole purpose of the DNS is to make
our
lives easier and make finding what we are after less painless.  It is not as
has
been the case recently, for commercial interests to gain large financial
benefits.

|> Treating a registry/TLD as a limited resource, somewhat like spectrum,
seems
|> to be consistent with the ccTLDs' practices, (or most of them).
|>
|> I don't really see how registry "competition" can work, in short.  But if
|> someone can describe their vision, I'm willing to listen.

I see the Registries as being Internet resources.  I do not see any need for
competition at that level.  If anything, competition at the Registry level
has a
number of disadvantages.  Mainly being the involvement of commercial
interests
who are primarily interested in maintaining high profit centers.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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
- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 15:48:20 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 3:36 PM
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> > I see the structure having a fixed price across all Registies, fixed by
ICANN.
|> > There may be some diversity between TLD's to increase usage but personally
I
|> > would prefer to have a standard price across all.  I see it as a funding
|> > mechanism for ICANN and for development.  The current price is $6 USD per
|> > domain.  I would like to see it set at $4 USD.  $1 going directly to ICANN,
$1
|> > going into a fund for research and development, the other $2 to remain with
the
|> > Registry for operating costs and associated development.  There would not
be any
|> > competition between Registries aside from promotion of the TLD they
operate.

Hi Chris

|> That is illegal in the US. The only reason they did it with NSI is because
|> they were a government contractor.

There are always ways around such things.  Nor do I hold with the Internet
infrastructure being bound by US law.  I assume you refer to the price fixing as
being illegal.  I would not have any problem with it being competitive,
providing the Registries were run on a non-profit basis by non-commercial
entities.  This may be the best option, with ICANN setting a price cap and
defining how the fees should be distributed.  The Registries could still use
price as a competitive option and as WX has pointed out, satisfy the need as
some people see it for competition to drive innovation and development.  My main
contention is that such infrastructure should not be in the hands of localised
commercial interests.

|> This will never happen unless congress changes the law. That's just the way
it is.

Don't see it as a barrier, just another factor to be taken under consideration.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 17 Mar 2001 21:57:28 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

Hello Dassa,

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 5:54:07 PM, Dassa wrote:

|>> -----Original Message-----
|>> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 12:40 PM
|>> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>>
|>> I don't agree.  Non-competitive systems tend to lead to higher prices
|>> and costs, and less efficiency.

> Hi WX

> That would depend on the structure used.  A number of the ccTLD's Registries
> operate as non-commercial entities.  I see no evidence this has led to
> inefficiencies or higher costs.

Have you looked at the prices being charged in many of these ccTLDs?
I've seen some as high as $1,000 a year.

I also say, though, that the ccTLDs as a group are not a good example
for these kinds of issues.

> I see the Registries as being a major part of the infrastructure, not as part of
> the commercial interests.  At the Registrar level, competition and commercial
> factors should be encouraged, this is the level it belongs, where the consumers
> are.  If we follow your reasoning, ICANN should itself be a commercial entity.

ICANN isn't a supplier though.  At least in my opinion they shouldn't
be.  The registries are suppliers to the registrars.

Under this logic, car makers would be non-profit, since the car
dealers are the ones who deal with the public.

I can't support that kind of a model.  Registries should be
competitive as well.

> I've seen this argument raised a number of times but I still fail to see it in
> practical examples.

Look at any industry where there is a monopoly at play.   It was
pointed out in the Microsoft trial, for instance, that had the OS
market been competitive, like the Accounting Software market for
example, the price of the OS would have been vastly lower over time,
rather than progressively increasing in price as MS's Operating system
prices were.  Also, between versions, less innovation in actual
enhancements and benefits were seen, compared to other more
competitive aspects of the software industry.

The market should drive the policies, in a competitive environment,
non-profit "control" lends itself to a more "controlling" environment
by bodies like ICANN and other "regulatory" groups who may decide they
should dictate policies for TLDs.

For example, I would NOT want a group like the SBA controlling policy
for who could register in a .biz TLD.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
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, 17 Mar 2001 22:02:38 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution

Hello Dassa,

Saturday, March 17, 2001, 8:48:20 PM, Dassa wrote:

|>> That is illegal in the US. The only reason they did it with NSI is because
|>> they were a government contractor.

> There are always ways around such things.  Nor do I hold with the Internet
> infrastructure being bound by US law.

Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
our laws.  The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
issues, must be the driving factors.  ICANN it bound by those simply
because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
what "power" it has are with the US Government.

> I assume you refer to the price fixing as
> being illegal.  I would not have any problem with it being competitive,
> providing the Registries were run on a non-profit basis by non-commercial
> entities.  This may be the best option, with ICANN setting a price cap and
> defining how the fees should be distributed.  The Registries could still use
> price as a competitive option and as WX has pointed out, satisfy the need as
> some people see it for competition to drive innovation and development.  My main
> contention is that such infrastructure should not be in the hands of localised
> commercial interests.

Why not?

The infrastructure that IS the internet is privately owned by
commercial interests.

If those interests are not reacting to the market in the way that they
should, then others are free to innovate in a way that will.

This is why New.net has been as successful as they have of late.
ICANN was not aggressively solving the consumer demand for more
namespace.  As a result, New.net and their TLDs are now visible by
over 5% of internet users worldwide in their first month of business.

ICANN is now reacting to that pressure, by directing the president to
act on a fast track to get the negotiations for the 7 new TLDs
completed ASAP.

Competitive pressure is usually the best pressure that exists.

Without it, we get bureaucracy and red tape, and all of the many
things those bring with them.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 18:00:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

At 19:52 17/03/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>I, however, do not believe this is a better approach.  Again you end
>up with people possibly "Settling" for the best "combination" rather
>than electing the two best possible candidates.
>
>The combination is not nearly as important.

I do not think so. In my experience nothing is more paralyzing than a chair
and a co-chair who cannot co-operate.
The ticket-based approach seeks to  prevent such a situation.

- --joop

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 17:14:28 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

At 12:40 18/03/01 +1100, Dassa wrote:

>I see the Registries as being Internet resources.  I do not see any need for
>competition at that level.  If anything, competition at the Registry level
has a
>number of disadvantages.  Mainly being the involvement of commercial
interests
>who are primarily interested in maintaining high profit centers.
>

And non-competition or anti -competitive behaviour at the registry level
leads to better results?

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 07:36:19 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Apologies - Was: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent and all,
>
>Roberto, you are adopting Dave Crocker's bad habit of sending HTML
>messages, and, while I can read them fine, it is substantially harder to
>reply to them...

Please accept my humble apologies.
I unintentionally turned a flag on and did not realize it until after having 
sent already few messages.
Normal behaviour has been restored.

(Incidentally, I was one of those who complained to Dave some time ago)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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, 18 Mar 2001 17:41:40 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of William X. Walsh
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 4:57 PM
|> Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
Hi WX
|>
|> > That would depend on the structure used.  A number of the ccTLD's
Registries
|> > operate as non-commercial entities.  I see no evidence this has led to
|> > inefficiencies or higher costs.
|>
|> Have you looked at the prices being charged in many of these ccTLDs?
|> I've seen some as high as $1,000 a year.

Yes and some a lot lower, those are the Registrar prices though aren't they, do
we have any indication of the charges for the Registries?

|> I also say, though, that the ccTLDs as a group are not a good example
|> for these kinds of issues.

True, but they are the closest structures to what I envisage as the ideal.

|> > I see the Registries as being a major part of the infrastructure,  not as
part of
|> > the commercial interests.  At the Registrar level, competition and
commercial
|> > factors should be encouraged, this is the level it belongs, where the
consumers
|> > are.  If we follow your reasoning, ICANN should itself be a commercial
entity.
|>
|> ICANN isn't a supplier though.  At least in my opinion they shouldn't
|> be.  The registries are suppliers to the registrars.

ICANN is a supplier, as the ability to make contracts for the Registries
indicates.  If they were not a supplier they would not be able to sign off on
the contracts.

|> Under this logic, car makers would be non-profit, since the car
|> dealers are the ones who deal with the public.

Do not follow this logic, car makers are not handling a global resource of
similar nature to the Internet.

|> I can't support that kind of a model.  Registries should be competitive as
well.

I do not see the need for it but obviously others do.  I suggest it is possible
to do so and still build a structure acceptable to us all.

|> > I've seen this argument raised a number of times but I still fail to see it
in
|> > practical examples.
|>
|> Look at any industry where there is a monopoly at play.   It was
|> pointed out in the Microsoft trial, for instance, that had the OS
|> market been competitive, like the Accounting Software market for
|> example, the price of the OS would have been vastly lower over time,
|> rather than progressively increasing in price as MS's Operating system
|> prices were.  Also, between versions, less innovation in actual
|> enhancements and benefits were seen, compared to other more
|> competitive aspects of the software industry.

I can't see the comparison.  With the model I suggested there would still be
competition, where it counts.  Instead of competition at the Registry level you
would have the price fixed at the lowest possible level.  Market forces would
work at the higher Registrar level and would assist in driving innovation and
enhancements.  At the lower Registry level, development would continue under
strict funding that would keep the price low.

|> The market should drive the policies, in a competitive environment,
|> non-profit "control" lends itself to a more "controlling" environment
|> by bodies like ICANN and other "regulatory" groups who may decide they
|> should dictate policies for TLDs.

One of the policies should be to maintain protection of the infrastructure, I do
not see the protection in having commercial interests looking after the
Registries.

|> For example, I would NOT want a group like the SBA controlling policy
|> for who could register in a .biz TLD.

But you are willing to have commercial interests decide who may register under
any given TLD?

Personally, I would like to see no restriction on who may register under any
TLD, even the CCTLD's.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 17:59:04 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 5:03 PM
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|>
|> Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
|> our laws.  The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
|> issues, must be the driving factors.  ICANN it bound by those simply
|> because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
|> what "power" it has are with the US Government.

Which is forcing the rest of the world to conform to the authority of the USG
over the Internet.  Something I do not personally agree with but accept as the
practical course for the present.  In the future, I would like to see a more
International approach.

|> > I assume you refer to the price fixing as
|> > being illegal.  I would not have any problem with it being competitive,
|> > providing the Registries were run on a non-profit basis by non-commercial
|> > entities.  This may be the best option, with ICANN setting a price cap and
|> > defining how the fees should be distributed.  The Registries could still
use
|> > price as a competitive option and as WX has pointed out, satisfy the need
as
|> > some people see it for competition to drive innovation and development.  My
main
|> > contention is that such infrastructure should not be in the hands of
localised
|> > commercial interests.
|>
|> Why not?
|>
|> The infrastructure that IS the internet is privately owned by commercial
interests.

No, not all of it.  Although they are taking up more and more.  The problem with
having commercial interests involved with all levels of the infrastructure is
that they are primarily concerned with their bottom dollar figures and not in
the general well being of the Internet.  Although commercial interests do have
an important role, I do not want to see them having total control over
everything.

|> If those interests are not reacting to the market in the way that they
|> should, then others are free to innovate in a way that will.

They also try to exploit markets, often having detrimental effects on end users.
There are limited protection layers for end users.

|> This is why New.net has been as successful as they have of late.
|> ICANN was not aggressively solving the consumer demand for more
|> namespace.  As a result, New.net and their TLDs are now visible by
|> over 5% of internet users worldwide in their first month of business.
|>
|> ICANN is now reacting to that pressure, by directing the president to
|> act on a fast track to get the negotiations for the 7 new TLDs
|> completed ASAP.

I agree ICANN has not been reacting well to the demand for more TLD's.  I do not
see any need to limit the TLD's in the way they have been, nor do I agree with
fragmentation of the DNS.

|> Competitive pressure is usually the best pressure that exists.

Competitive pressure can be applied at multiple levels.  It will be interesting
to see how the new.net operation goes.

|> Without it, we get bureaucracy and red tape, and all of the many
|> things those bring with them.

With commercialisation we often get the same and other factors introduced
including market glut and the failure of a proportion of the entities involved.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 18:04:12 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2001 4:14 PM
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Draft Resolution
|>
|> And non-competition or anti -competitive behaviour at the registry level
leads to better results?

The idea of competition in this context has always been to force prices down and
to give others an opportunity to gain benefits.  My idea is that the price
should always be held down to the lowest level for Registries.  With set amounts
delegated to research and development, also for funding ICANN activities.

However, I am not opposed to having competition at the Registry Level.  Just
that I would rather non-commercial entities be given the responsibility for
administrating them, not commercial interests.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 18 Mar 2001 18:13:55 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Role of US Government

On Sunday, March 18, 2001 5:02 PM (AEST)
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Saturday, March 17, 2001, 8:48:20 PM, Dassa wrote:
> > There are always ways around such things.  Nor do I hold with the
> > Internet infrastructure being bound by US law.
>
> Actually it MUST be bound by US law, simply because of the history and
> our laws.  The role the USG has played and our laws that govern those
> issues, must be the driving factors.  ICANN it bound by those simply
> because it is a US based corporation, and the contracts that give it
> what "power" it has are with the US Government.

Hi William

On the one hand you are arguing in favour of a single root under ICANN control
and on the other hand you are arguing in favour of competitive market forces
which allow New.Net to set up a competing root.

Whilst I don't see those as being inclusive arguments my main difficulty is
adding an overlay which says that this whole internet infrastructure *must* be
bound by US law.  The are two problems:

(1)    If there is a single monopolistic root this would be at risk of breaking
US anti-trust laws.  Certainly that's an argument that has been made.

(2)    There is nothing to stop a person in another country, such as Australia,
setting up another competing root which is not subject to USG laws except as it
relates to internet use within its jurisdiction.

And as every country can pass and enforce laws within its jurisdiction, the USG
would not have any special privilege over the internet.

As with the "market forces" you advocate there are also political, social and
economic forces which will steer the direction of the internet.

This can be seen, to some extent, with the ccTLDs.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 #290
************************