[ga] NC meeting 03/31/00 and Ken Stubbs budget proposal for the DNSO

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

All assembly members,

  I don't know why this was posted to the NCDNHC list and not the
DNSO GA list but here it is anyway:
=======================================
Subject:
            Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
       Date:
            Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:35:19 +0800
      From:
            "YJ Park" <yjpark@aptld.org>
        To:
            "James Love" <love@cptech.org>, "NCDNHC"
<NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
 References:
            1




Dear Members,

Just finishing NC teleconference...

The whole subject of that was "MONEY".
=====================================
I. 'Budget' proposal, 95,500 USD made by Ken.
II. How to collect money among the constituency.
=====================================
There have been two voting processes on both I and II.
Due to Kathy's early leave and Zakaria's absense,
I should cast three votes, one for Kathy, one for Zakaria and one for
myself.

I. Whether we are going to recognise it or not.

Result:
Three Abstension(YJ, Kathy and Zakaria),
The other 14 Yes, One Absence.

II. How to implemet it.
Moved by Roger, member of gTLD.
Couldn't quite remember them completely,though.
    1) Equally divided
    2) Cooperatively work among or within the constituencies
    3) Cooperatively work with GA
    4) ICANN staff help for more voluntary fund-raising.

Result:
Three Abstension under the remarks favorable with 2,3, and 4
but not agreeable with 1(YJ, Kathy and Zakaria)
The other 14 Yes, One absence.

The main issue we have to visit within the constituency is
"equal right", "equal vote" and "equal responsibility" have been
discussed
during the meeting.

We really have to come up with solid position on this.
First of all, to put some weight to our position in the future, sliding
scale,
we have to keep our promise made in LA,
which might be revisited whether it was a committement or not.

I do think it was commitment.
So far, we have 2,150 USD or so.

Looking forward to your further cooperation
which will make it reach 5,000 USD.....

Regards,

YJ

PS: Ken's proposal attached.
============================================================
Assumptions and related costs are included below: (Note: all costs are
in
US$)

Web Hosting & Connectivity:

Machines:  Estimated Cost = $5000

Connectivity  = ICANN will provide connectivity

                                                       Total web hosting
&
Connectivity
$ 5,000

Teleconferences:

Estimate 12 teleconferences per year x 2 hours x 20 persons     (est.
$600/teleconference)                                       7,200

Salaries:

One full time Names Council Staff person to be located physically in the

ICANN offices in Marina Del Rey California

 Salary cost (including payroll taxes & insurance)
55,000

Office expenses (Including telephone etc)        (estimate at $900
US/month)
$10,800

Office set up  (i.e. equipment purchases - computer, acctg software etc.
)
3,000

                                    Total Office expenses
13,800

Travel to 3 meetings/year for 4 days @$2,500/meeting for above mentioned

staff                                                     7,500

Incidentals & miscellaneous unforeseen costs (contingency
15,000

            Total not counting ICANN Meeting costs
$91,500

Suggestion for handling meeting costs...

For single per-ICANN meeting fee (<$1,000), the NC would be able to
create
an
audio archive of the following meetings:
4,000

- NC
     - GA
     - constituencies
     - Working Groups

An audio tape would be made for each meeting, later to be digitized and
posted on a real audio source website. This would satisfy the by-law
requirements
(i checked with the ICANN staff) and significantly reduce our budget for

meeting broadcasts.


Total overall   including contingency reserve
$95,500


> This is a missive I sent yesterday to the ABA antitrust list.
> Jamie
>
> ------------------
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:13:15 -0500
> From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
> To: ABA Antrtrust List <AT-MEMBERS@ABANET.ORG>
> Subject: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
>
> This is a question about antitrust actions involving private sector
> "self governance" organizations.
>
> ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  It
is
> a California Non-Profit organization, and is operating under a
> memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Commerce that
> might be terminated as early as this year (or might not, of course, if

> DOC decides to extend it).
>
> ICANN now controls the main root server for the Internet DNS system,
the
> thing that permits people to use names like www.usdoj.gov or
www.ftc.gov
> instead of numbers like 149.101.10.32 or 164.62.7.15.
>
> The names are organized in a series of domains.  The top level domain
> (TLD) is the last name in the string, such as .com, .org, .gov or .uk.

> The next one is the second level domain, or SLD, and so on.  NTIA is
the
> third level domain in ntia.doc.gov.
>
> Right now there are 244 2 digit country code top level domains
(ccTLDs)
> like .uk, .fr and .jp, and seven so called "generic" top level domains

> (gTLDs), out of the country code space, of which only three are widely

> available, .com, .net and .org.  All three of the generally available
> gTLDs are manged by NSI, a firm that was recently sold for about $22
> billion.
>
> While several country TLDs have tried to compete against NSI for
> registering domains, for the most part the action is in .com, a single

> TLD.  IMO, this is because ccTLDs like .to, .de, .au etc are not
> particularly well known,  intuitive or appealing.  The 2 letter limit
> for ccTLDs is a also severe constraint.  (There are a few exceptions,
of
> course, like the .fm ccTLD which is marketed to fm radio stations, for

> example).
>
> For the public, the .com space is very overcrowded.  People are paying

> huge sums to buy the rapidly dimminishing remaing regular names on the

> com space, and people apparently pay millions for generic names.
MSNBC
> reported today that someone paid $38 million for cool.com.  I don't
know
> if this is a bona fide offer or not, but there are surly lots of high
> priced sales, and many businesses, NGOs and individuals cannot buy the

> names they want from .com, .net or .org.
>
> Technically, the TLD space could be huge, perhaps as large as a
million
> TLDs with today's technology, and who knows how large later.
>
> While anyone can set up a computer to run a TLD registry, very few
> people will be able to find it, unless ICANN includes the TLD in the
> main root.
>
> Several years ago, the pre-ICANN authority proposed to create 150 new
> TLDs, run by 50 new NSI competitors.  The main thing that stopped this

> was the (big) trademark lobby.  There are also non-trivial but
> resolvable issues concerning the policies associated with new TLDs.
>
> Now ICANN is considering once again to expand the root, first with a 6

> to 10 TLD testbest, and once that is done, perhaps a much larger
> expansion.  We have called for the addition of thousand of new TLDs.
> There is much demand for new TLDs.
>
> Within the proposed new TLD space would be lots of types of new TLDs.
> Some would be .com clones, like .inc, .biz, .web, .zone, .store.
.firm,
> mall, etc.  Others would be particular to types of activity, such as
> software, .consultant, .sex, .usedcars, .flowers or .drugstore.  And
> this is just scratching the surface.  There would also be a variety of

> noncommercial TLDs, such as .union, .sucks, or .isnotfair, and lots of

> different management styles, some unrestricted and some restricted.
For
> example, .union might be controlled by labor unions, or .usbank might
be
> restricted to FDIC insured bands (an actual proposal by an FDIC
> official).
>
> All of this is being held up by a handful of big corporate trademark
> lawyers, who have generally opposed adding new commerical TLDs.  These

> by and large are firms that already have staked out or taken various
> domains like att.com, mattel.com, pepsi.com, etc, and they don't want
to
> have to fight to protect their trademark name in thousands of new
TLDs.
>
> These trademark groups are saying they will block any new TLDs unless
> their demands are met.  One current one is to create an open ended
list
> of "famous" names that would be reserved on new TLDs.  There are
various
> issues in these negotations, including such items as how many uses of
a
> "string" (use of a name) would be reserved.  For example, would
> cokevpepsi.comparison be blocked?   Would boeing.union be reserved for

> boeing?  Would Exxon.sucks be reserved for Exxon?   (There may be some

> openess to consider non-commercial exceptions).
>
> There is no legal basis for this type of reservation of famous
> trademarks in the US or in nearly any country, and many of the
proposed
> reservations don't make any sense.  For example, why would ford motor
> company be able to reserve ford.flowers, ford.plumbing or even
> ford.foundation (not to mention ford.modeling)?  Why would one not
have
> lotus.cars, lotus.flowers and lotus.software, one ICANN participant
> asked?
>
> The trademark lobby is seeking to "own" a string across all TLD space
on
> the Internet, and of course, you can't blame them for trying.  But
they
> are seeking this not in a national legislature or through a treaty,
but
> through ICANN's control of the Internet's root.
>
> The failure to expand the root is now beginning to have serious
> anticompetive consequences, because new entrants are disadvantaged, by

> not having very much space to find domains.  This is an artificial
> regulatory scaricity, but largely by a private sector self regulation
> body.
>
> Would there be antitrust grounds to challenge a decision by ICANN to
> place restrictions of the use of famous names?
>
>  Jamie
>
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k 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:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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