From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #90 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Tuesday, April 18 2000 Volume 01 : Number 090 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:58:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Apr-2000 Paul Stahura wrote: > There is a pent-up demand for domains in the new TLD's. > I don't think there is an argument about that. > There is no way you can "outlaw" this demand. > I do not see any problem with registrars building queues > of names that their customers would like to register > as soon as they are able to. A round-robbin scheme > on day one of a new TLD will ensure fairness. > On the days before day-one of the release of a new tld > you will have registrars "pre-registering" names, > even if it is just one name. > > There is no way to stop it, that I can see. Certainly there is. If a registry or registrar participates in that activity, they could lose their registry and/or their accreditation. And purely for identification purposes, I just wanted to point out that Enom.com is a CORE member registrar. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4+4j/8zLmV94Pz+IRAvYWAKCYZsoZSRg1Vj434U4No4QXxNqdegCglFM3 /ceVymiHWCI/KJu9nylLJ+o= =S0e6 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:00:52 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > That said, I do not support registrars "pre-registering" names for a fee > because there is no guarentee that the person "pre-registering" the > name will actually get (register) the name. Registrants should only > be charged if the registrar actually registeres the name at the registry. Then your argument is with the individual registrars. CORE registrars have done this for TLDs that their registry is hoping to get into the root. IOD has done this for a single TLD that it hopes to get into the root. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:04:48 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > Certainly there is. If a registry or registrar participates in that activity, > they could lose their registry and/or their accreditation. Perhaps, were ICANN to make a rule today that this behaviour is grounds to lose accreditation, they would stop. But ICANN has issued no such rule, so the behaviour continues. Were ICANN to issue a rule that registries/registrars must remove all pre-registrations that they have done in the past, that rule would be challenged and certainly found unfair. Just as you cannot pass a law making what you did yesterday illegal such that you go to jail today, you can't retroactively cancel existing contracts - and make no mistake, the registrations are legal contracts. Concentrate on what you CAN do. If you feel strongly enough about this, then get ICANN to pass a rule making the behaviour off-limits from now on. ICANN could say, "look, we don't like this, so anyone who does it after tomorrow won't be considered." Not much that anyone could do about that. Or you can just gripe on mailing lists. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:27:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > Were ICANN to issue a rule that registries/registrars must > remove all pre-registrations that they have done in the past, > that rule would be challenged and certainly found unfair. Just > as you cannot pass a law making what you did yesterday > illegal such that you go to jail today, you can't retroactively > cancel existing contracts - and make no mistake, the > registrations are legal contracts. Sorry, Chris, but ICANN never authorized you to make those registrations, and is under no obligation to honor them. If you can't or won't cancel them, that just eliminates IOD from being eligible to apply for the TLD. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4+4+08zLmV94Pz+IRAmG0AKCL7vi6hNHDxOWGRK/yPFeYKO//MACggu3a jvFshB7Qi6lVsWMjC15vFwc= =LK/n - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:39:39 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > Sorry, Chris, but ICANN never authorized you to make those registrations, and > is under no obligation to honor them. If you can't or won't cancel them, that > just eliminates IOD from being eligible to apply for the TLD. ICANN also didn't authorize me to use green on my page instead of blue, but they cannot eliminate IOD from being eligible to apply for the TLD as a result. ICANN also never authorized quite a few policies at NSI (IANA did), but was powerless to stop them (hence the protracted negotiations). William, you are not ICANN, and you are not a lawyer. You can jump up and down all you want and proclaim utopian rules for new registries that fit your worldview, but unless ICANN has all of a sudden started listening to you for policy, you're just tilting at windmills. If ICANN has anything to say on this matter, I'm keen to hear it. Failing that, nothing has changed. Have a great day. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:49:11 -0400 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs Just >as you cannot pass a law making what you did yesterday >illegal such that you go to jail today, you can't retroactively >cancel existing contracts - and make no mistake, the >registrations are legal contracts. I'm going to regret posting this, but just for the sake of argument, if someone is not authorized to sell a "root a server" domain name today (as opposed to selling an alternate root server registration today), then why is it a mistake to question whether a contract to sell such a domain name today is perhaps unenforceable (unless the proto-registrar was silly enough not to put in a clause referring to the ultimate registration being dependent on the actions of others (as in ICANN)? ICANN wouldn't be cancelling an exisitng contract, it would be refusing to recognize obligations to which it was not a party. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:58:12 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > ICANN wouldn't be cancelling an exisitng contract, it would be refusing to > recognize obligations to which it was not a party. The Mazda Miata was wildly popular when it came out. Dealerships pre-sold them all in no time at all, even before they knew how many they would get from the factory. They told everyone, "Hey, the factory is sending us some. We don't know how many, or when we'll get them, but we'll sell you a place in line for $100." Some dealerships offered refunds if you didn't get one. Some, in fact, didn't, saying "we were promised 50 units, so we'll only sell 50 places. We'll do our best, but no refunds. If you don't like it, that's fine, don't buy a place in line." What if the Mazda company had told all of its dealerships, "Um, all of you who sold places in line, that's not fair to those who didn't even know that the car was coming out, so kill those lists and start over from scratch?" It wouldn't have worked. Without a rule to cover the situation, even in the case where the dealership had a contract with the factory, the factory could do nothing. You can't make a condition for acceptance based upon the cancellation of legal contracts with customers. In this case, it's even more obvious - In this case, there are a handful of companies that have been operating based on the directives given them by IANA. As ICANN has taken over the IANA function, one could argue that ICANN must honour those directives (at best) or clarify them (at worst). As I've said, if ICANN were to step forward today and say, "Okay, as IANA, we have to ask you to now stop taking registrations," I guess we'd have to deal with that. But they can't say, "Oh, we're not allowing anyone in the roots who has either taken registrations already or has eaten eggs for breakfast in the past year." Both are just as unworkable (and both are probably just as illegal). PS: william - don't claim IANA didn't have authority - we're not allowed to discuss that on this list, and I don't wish to run afoul of the rules. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:12:58 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 03:58:12PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > ICANN wouldn't be cancelling an exisitng contract, it would be refusing to > > recognize obligations to which it was not a party. > > The Mazda Miata was wildly popular when it came out. Dealerships > pre-sold them all in no time at all, even before they knew how > many they would get from the factory. They told everyone, "Hey, > the factory is sending us some. We don't know how many, or > when we'll get them, but we'll sell you a place in line for $100." > Some dealerships offered refunds if you didn't get one. Some, > in fact, didn't, saying "we were promised 50 units, so we'll only > sell 50 places. We'll do our best, but no refunds. If you don't > like it, that's fine, don't buy a place in line." > > What if the Mazda company had told all of its dealerships, "Um, > all of you who sold places in line, that's not fair to those who > didn't even know that the car was coming out, so kill those > lists and start over from scratch?" Actually, the situation at hand is like a Mazda Dealership telling Ford that it's list for Miatas should also apply to Jaguars. An IODesign registry is not the same as an ICANN registry... - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:28:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > ICANN wouldn't be cancelling an exisitng contract, it would be refusing to > recognize obligations to which it was not a party. No doubt that it can do that. However, the question is whether it would be a legitimate thing to do. The first question in my mind is how this would at all be considered "technical coordination". I personally find the issue of recognition of previous obligations of operators of new TLDs in the ICANN root to be a matter with absolutely no technical content whatsoever. The second question in my mind is how this comports with ICANN's de facto monopoly over DNS. (Competitive roots, although possible and, in my view, very potentially valuable and lucrative, are today really not very viable.) If ICANN claims immunity from monopoly concerns as a result of its government umbrella, I would wonder where the government agency involved has the statutory power to grant such a monopoly right to make what, as I mentioned above, is a purely policy decision that is devoid of any technical content. If, on the other hand, ICANN were to eschew its goverment umbrella, then I perceive this proposed rule as being not very different than if Microsoft were to require that any seller/licensor of Microsoft software not sell/license Linux. In both instances, it would be an abusive use of market position. As an aside - since I am already in IOD's version of .web, I would strongly object to ICANN interfering with my agreement with IOD. I would suggest that those who are concerned about not having a position for their marks in extension TLDs follow tried and true economic methods - they should now - today, this afternoon - go to all the extension TLD operators, and register their marks for the relatively small fees that the extension TLD operators are charging. To my mind, any prudent mark holder who is serious about protecting its marks ought to spend a few dollars to register its names in any and all extension TLDs as soon as possible rather than hoping for some untested and possibly flawed protective scheme to evolve out of ICANN's working groups. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:35:42 +1000 From: Andrew Dalgleish Subject: RE: [wg-c] Administrivia (041700) > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Brunner [SMTP:brunner@world.std.com] > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 20:53 > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia (041700) > > > The Full Monty follows. Errors to me. > > Cheers, > Eric > > 139 subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) > 15 subscribers of list 'wg-c-digest' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) > > Note that Jeff Trexler is counted 3 times, as is Mark Measday, so the > number > of actual subscribers to both wg-c lists is 150, not 154. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > A.M. Rutkowski | B | | | | EXIT | > Ajay Joshi | | | NEW | | N.Y.N | > Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | > Amar Andersson | A,D | | | | Y.Y.a | > Andrew Dalgleish | | | NEW | | N.Y.a | [Andrew Dalgleish] I voted NYN, not NYa. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 100 18:50:39 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > > That said, I do not support registrars "pre-registering" names for a fee > > because there is no guarentee that the person "pre-registering" the > > name will actually get (register) the name. Registrants should only > > be charged if the registrar actually registeres the name at the registry. > > Then your argument is with the individual registrars. CORE registrars > have done this for TLDs that their registry is hoping to get into the > root. IOD has done this for a single TLD that it hopes to get into the > root. > -- > Christopher Ambler > chris@the.web Ah!!! *THIS* actually seems very positive if I read it right. (I'm not trying to be cynical, obtuse, funny or twisted here) Chris, are you trying to tell us that IOD has finally thought that it would be a good idea to accept a situation where ".web" gets inserted in the legacy roots even if it doesn't belong to IOD, have it setup in a shared registrar fashion, be ONE of those registrars and at day0 have something along the lines of a round-robin system, and have all of it's existing customers go through this process? I would *GUESS* that a VERY large % of IOD's existing customers would actually get their domain (practically all of those that have non-generic words as domains, as there wouldn't be a rush of day0 for them), and it would certainly look as the best business model for IOD, which incidently would mean a load of cash for YOU. You can certainly publicize the fact that you have been registering in ".web" for ages (forget about mentioning the detail that it wasn't the same ".web"), and I would think that you would be the No.1 registrar for ".web" domains for quite a while. If you give a good service, the price is right, etc... then you have a starting position which is better than any other registrar. Yes, it *does* mean conceding somewhat in the fight to claim exclusive ownership of ".web", but it is for you to decide if what you want is to make money or not. (and personally I've always thought that the quest to claim ".web" was about being able to make money). Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:43:09 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > Chris, are you trying to tell us that IOD has finally thought that it would > be a good idea to accept a situation where ".web" gets inserted in the > legacy roots even if it doesn't belong to IOD, have it setup in a shared > registrar fashion, be ONE of those registrars and at day0 have something > along the lines of a round-robin system, and have all of it's existing > customers go through this process? *SOMEONE* has to run the registry. If this happened, who would run the .web registry? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:55:23 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > PS: william - don't claim IANA didn't have authority - we're not > allowed to discuss that on this list, and I don't wish to run afoul > of the rules. I don't have to point out the obvious, Chris. Everyone already knows it, and understands it. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4+6Rr8zLmV94Pz+IRAtpnAJ9XxchtEPjxIHToX+u5jC7052c1HgCcDlyM Ot/Ph3MRjU+PItsSsETD3do= =ZXOz - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 100 19:12:41 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > > Chris, are you trying to tell us that IOD has finally thought that it > would > > be a good idea to accept a situation where ".web" gets inserted in the > > legacy roots even if it doesn't belong to IOD, have it setup in a shared > > registrar fashion, be ONE of those registrars and at day0 have something > > along the lines of a round-robin system, and have all of it's existing > > customers go through this process? > > *SOMEONE* has to run the registry. Agreed 100% > If this happened, who would run the .web registry? The money to be made is (should be?)on the registry side, so from that point of view, one answer could be "who cares?". After all, what I *think* I'm reading here is that you want IOD to be a registrar. Yes, I know you've said many times that you want IOD to be a registry, but I don't think that the way things are currently going would allow ANY company to be at the sime time registrar AND registry. If you want IOD to be a registry too, then you'd have to split into to separate entities *now* (not some 4 year -or whatever- provision like what was given to NSI, which in any case I *think* has already split completely -though I may be VERY wrong-). In any case, to answer the question, we know -as you state- that *SOMEONE* has to run the registry, and most of us understand that only *ONE* entity can do so (anyone arguing differently for that still hasn't presented the tech specs for their pipedream). Something which would fly today is putting out a series of stringent requirements (much stricter than the registRAR accreditation due to the fact that there can only be one) under which a registry operator could be accredited and then tender it out for bids. Presumably it would be done at the same time the other X (6-10?) gTLDs would be tendered, and there would be a limit on how many gTLDs a single registry operator could handle. Cheap, backend, no frills attached, just run the registry. And, of course, open specs, agreed upon, with a provision to escrow the data with one (or more) other registry operators, so that in the event that one goes out of existance, the data continues flawlessly. I think we would have learnt through proof of usage that one MAJOR modification to be done to the current com/net/org sharing model is to have a centralized whois database. My *business* advice to IOD, go for it as a registrar. You've got lumps of money to make there as you already have a bunch of customers just waiting to go "live" (yes, you WOULD have a handful who wouldn't get their names in on the first round-robin, but they are just the hopefuls who want to make it rich with a "business.com" type scenario -nothing wrong with that- and understand they were just gambling. In any case, they would still be visible in your CURRENT servers, so they wouldn't be any worse off than they are today). Yours, John. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:05:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > Chris, are you trying to tell us that IOD has finally thought that it would > be a good idea to accept a situation where ".web" gets inserted in the > legacy roots even if it doesn't belong to IOD, have it setup in a shared > registrar fashion, This presumes that all new gTLDs should be setup in a shared registrar fashion. This is not the case. I would certainly not agree with this setup. Just like I don't agree that self-declared registries who took a risk and setup their own shop in the hopes of getting recognized should have any more rights than anyone else in the application process, I also don't believe that anyone who registered with a registrar or registry who was speculating in this fashion should have any rights to those registrations beyond what the general public will have. They should be advised that registrations for real names in the real roots will begin soon, and that they will have their chance, along with the rest of the public, to secure their favorite names when the registries are openned. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4+6bh8zLmV94Pz+IRApCWAJ4x7f0qB41K12/ayqrwjWjG8xC6UwCeKOzK r0Qfnq+ktE4scT1E+JxDxEc= =MQAo - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Apr-2000 Karl Auerbach wrote: > As an aside - since I am already in IOD's version of .web, I would > strongly object to ICANN interfering with my agreement with IOD. You knew the risk when you registered, Karl. And lastly, what IOD does it it's own roots, is their business. Their private .web registry can continue on just has it always has, but if they want to run a new .web registry in this root, those customers have no equivelant rights. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4+6eG8zLmV94Pz+IRAgg5AJ4v8Viz4674qpgbeTvYQtJdc365RgCfQoDU JIO6ICHTluOlhTJYzKytiao= =lEGz - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 20:49:10 -0400 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs >Karl Auerbach wrote: > > If ICANN claims immunity from monopoly concerns as a result of its > government umbrella, I would wonder where the government agency involved > has the statutory power to grant such a monopoly right to make what, as I > mentioned above, is a purely policy decision that is devoid of any > technical content. The decision in Name.Space v. NSI depends on the acceptance/recognition by the court of the "statutory power" of the DoC to grant NSI immunity for their "conduct in this case". How would the situation differ under ICANN, since the issue of access to the root is essentially the same as it was in our antitrust claim against NSI? I don't believe that such statutory power does exist within the DoC to grant such immunity, and in our case we argued such, but apparently the court did not agree. regards, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:59:54 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > The money to be made is (should be?)on the registry side, so from that point > of view, one answer could be "who cares?". After all, what I *think* I'm > reading here is that you want IOD to be a registrar. Yes, I know you've said > many times that you want IOD to be a registry, but I don't think that the > way things are currently going would allow ANY company to be at the sime > time registrar AND registry. If you want IOD to be a registry too, then > you'd have to split into to separate entities *now* (not some 4 year -or > whatever- provision like what was given to NSI, which in any case I *think* > has already split completely -though I may be VERY wrong-). Okay, we'll split now. Next issue? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:10:09 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs At 04:28 PM 4/17/00 -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > ICANN wouldn't be cancelling an exisitng contract, it would be refusing to > > recognize obligations to which it was not a party. > >No doubt that it can do that. However, the question is whether it would >be a legitimate thing to do. Take a look at the P.O. and make your own mind up. The USG signed a purchase order and contract for ICANN to continue the functions of IANA: http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-09feb00.htm 2. SCHEDULE OF SERVICES The Contractor shall provide services to perform the operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) in accordance with the Statement of Work, Section 12 of this purchase order. Note that there is no authorization for any "substantial" changes in policy. Presumably, this allows the continuation of the majority of the prior work of IANA (which has to include all of the RFC1591 submissions): 12.5 PERFORMANCE EXCLUSIONS - This purchase order, in itself, does not authorize the contractor to make substantive changes in established policy associated with the performance of the IANA functions. P.S. No doubt some bonehead like will object to me posting this. Best Regards, Simon - -- Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people, and Fools argue. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:33:34 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 05:59:54PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > The money to be made is (should be?)on the registry side, so from that > point > > of view, one answer could be "who cares?". After all, what I *think* I'm > > reading here is that you want IOD to be a registrar. Yes, I know you've > said > > many times that you want IOD to be a registry, but I don't think that the > > way things are currently going would allow ANY company to be at the sime > > time registrar AND registry. If you want IOD to be a registry too, then > > you'd have to split into to separate entities *now* (not some 4 year -or > > whatever- provision like what was given to NSI, which in any case I > *think* > > has already split completely -though I may be VERY wrong-). > > Okay, we'll split now. Next issue? If you are split, which company is suing CORE, and why? But following this line of reasoning, there are now two companies -- one desiring to be a registrar, the other desiring to be a registry. The registrar has a list of people it would like to get in an accredited .web registry (run by anyone), but it has to be an accredited ICANN registrar for that to happen. So, what next #1, after the split: Registrar gets accreditation from ICANN, and starts making money registering real names... this registrar has a list of names for a .web that it will eagerly register when it gets a chance, but that will go through the round robin with all the other registrars. However, to expand on Johns point, people who have preregistered with IOD (the registrar) aren't likely to have preregistered elsewhere, and on balance, IOD would be well positioned to get many of its preregistrations in the real root. Note that it makes no difference to the registrar which company might get the .web registry -- the registry must treat all accredited registrars equally, regardless of who it is. But, accepting that whatever registry might get .web is going to start fresh, and go through a round robin with all accredited ICANN registrars, there is no point in bogus assertions of intellectual property in .web -- they serve no purpose except to feed lawsuits. Moreover, a pure registry will work fine with any TLD. So, what next #2: IOD the registry should drop all claims to .web and position itself to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available. Net result: Two companies. IOD the registrar makes money registering in .web, in .com/net/org/firm/shop/arts/whatever; IOD the registry makes its money registering names for any TLDs it happens to win a bid on, just like CORE the registry would register names for any TLDS it wins a bid on. Two viable companies, each making profit -- not exactly the model you had in mind, but Jeez, it makes money and it's an honorable profession. I submit that this is an infinitely better result than bankrupting IODs investors in a bunch of problematic lawsuits. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:53:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > I submit that this is an infinitely better result than bankrupting IODs > investors in a bunch of problematic lawsuits. While I agree with the above statement, the rest of your email presumes a shared registry model for all new registries, and that is not what we have agreed on here in this workgroup. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4+8Au8zLmV94Pz+IRApKeAKDIm0mcqvg9HjZ8Uc1bzWLTFBsgcgCgmNNe c1JnafRKaKwW7E9yg2G0hiE= =AHl4 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 18:54:19 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > If you are split, which company is suing CORE, and why? I will not comment on ongoing litigation. > So, what next #2: IOD the registry should drop all claims to .web and > position itself to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available. NSI the registry should drop all claims to .com and position itself to bid on any and all TLDs that might become available. > I submit that this is an infinitely better result than bankrupting IODs > investors in a bunch of problematic lawsuits. Your advice will be given all due consideration. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:28:40 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] consensus call results It seems to me that we got rough consensus on items one and two. On item one, the vote tally was 50 YES, 18 NO. The NO voters included both persons urging that the initial rollout should include *only* open gTLDs (such as Crocker, Broomfield, McCarthy, Teernstra, Wesson, Dalgleish), and persons skeptical of open gTLDs (such as Sheppard, Gymer, Schwimmer). On item two, the vote tally was 46 YES, 21 NO, 1 ABSTAIN. The most common objection among the NO voters was that the principles (while well-meant) were not useful or meaningful, and were too vague and subjective to serve as technical requirements. Item three came nowhere near achieving rough consensus. (The final tally was 19 YES, 33 NO, 17 ABSTAIN.) The most common criticism was that the technical specifications for internationalized domain names, now under consideration by an IETF working group, are still undeveloped, so any action to charter a DNSO working group would be premature. Vote tallies follow. Jon ITEM ONE YES: Fausett, Ambler, Lee, Brunner, Alvestrand, Love, Auerbach, Langston, Mueller, Dixon, Denton, Linares, Walsh, Yap, Seng, Shrewsbury, Campbell, Becar, Vienneau, Kamantauskas, Parker, Dawson, Feld, Elliott, Penman, Greenwell, Higgs, Chon, Vestal, Simon, Schuckman, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Schutt, Stubbs, Graehl, Connelly, Rindforth, Lubsen, Tan, Lupo, Echeberria, Iriarte, Semich, A.-C. Andersson, Park, A. Andersson, Kang, Kozlowski NO: Crocker, Broomfield, Connolly, Rader, McCarthy, Kelsey, Sheppard, Tamulione, Gymer, Joshi, Teernstra, Schwimmer, Cade, Wesson, Dalgleish, Garvey, Porteneuve, Winer ITEM TWO YES: Fausett, Ambler, Lee, Alvestrand, Love, Broomfield, Mueller, Dixon, Linares, Walsh, Winer, Yap, Seng, Sheppard, Shrewsbury, Campbell, Becar, Tamulione, Vinneau, Parker, Dawson, Feld, Gymer, Penman, Joshi, Chon, Vestal, Schuckman, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Stubbs, Connelly, Rindforth, Lubsen, Tan, Lupo, Dalgleish, Echeberria, Iriarte, A.-C. Andersson, Park, A. Andersson, Kang, Kozlowski, Porteneuve NO: Crocker, Brunner, Auerbach, Connolly, Langston, Denton, Rader, McCarthy, Kelsey, Kamantauskas, Elliott, Greenwell, Simon, Teernstra, Schutt, Schwimmer, Cade, Grahl, Wesson, Semich, Garvey. ABSTAIN: Higgs ITEM THREE YES: Crocker, Lee, Love, Broomfield, Dixon, Denton, Linares, Winer, Yap, Shrewsbury, Becar, Dawson, Penman, Stubbs, Connelly, Tan, Park, Kang, Kozlowski NO: Ambler, Brunner, Alvestrand, Auerbach, Connolly, Langston, Mueller, Walsh, Rader, Kelsey, Sheppard, Campbell, Vienneau, Kamantauskas, Elliott, Gymer, Greenwell, Joshi, Chon, Vestal, Simon, Schuckman, Teernstra, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Cade, Wesson, Lubsen, Dalgleish, Semich, Porteneuve, Winer ABSTAIN: Fausett, Seng, McCarthy, Tamulione, Parker, Feld, Higgs, Schutt, Schwimmer, Graehl, Rindforth, Lupo, Echeberria, Iriarte, A.-C. Andersson, A. Andersson, Garvey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:25:02 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] more list adminstration Seven messages today from one list member, six from another. I don't have anything against folks posting content to the list (indeed, I'm all for it), but I'd urge y'all that you can fit the same amount of content into a smaller number of messages. There's no rule that you must respond to every contrary post the moment you receive it; indeed, that's exactly what list members should *not* be doing. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:56:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > > If ICANN claims immunity from monopoly concerns as a result of its > > government umbrella, I would wonder where the government agency involved > > has the statutory power to grant such a monopoly right to make what, as I > > mentioned above, is a purely policy decision that is devoid of any > > technical content. > > The decision in Name.Space v. NSI depends on the acceptance/recognition > by the court of the "statutory power" of the DoC to grant NSI immunity > for their "conduct in this case". How would the situation differ under > ICANN, since the issue of access to the root is essentially the same as > it was in our antitrust claim against NSI? Your case was based on the power of NSF, as exercised by its successor agency to the contract, NTIA with regard to a contract/cooperative agreement with NSI. Here we have a situation in which NTIA, without any participation of NSF, entered into a contract/cooperative agreement with ICANN. So as you see, the legal context is entirely distinct and different. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 21:58:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > >No doubt that it can do that. However, the question is whether it would > >be a legitimate thing to do. > > Take a look at the P.O. and make your own mind up. The USG signed a > purchase order and contract for ICANN to continue the functions of IANA: It really doesn't matter whether NTIA filled out a purchase order or went out and paid cash - the question is the authority under which it acts. And if NTIA can not show a clear chain of authority leading back to the US Constitution, no amount of legerdomain is going to create such authority. And that lack of authority exists forever and may be attacked for the indefinite future. --karl-- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #90 *************************