Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> I don't agree that the NSI scenario is currently a "for-profit" as you put
> it.
> ICANN has veto over how registrars interact with NSI-registry.

No, consensus does. Very different.

> ICANN has veto over the price that NSI-registry sets to the registrars.

No, DOC does. After that, consensus. VERY very different.

> ICANN will rebid the running of the TLD in the future.

Patently and completely false, unless you consider 8 years the future. In
that case, fine. See you in 8 years.

> NSI has fully recognized ICANN and accepts its authority.

Did you read the agreement?!

> In other words, the issue over who owns com/net/org seems to be
> agreed that it is ICANN.

Sorry, no. Not even close. It's NSI, it's for-profit, and it's an 8-year
deal.

> NSI DoC & ICANN all seem to have agreed that the scenario is open
> competition to register in com/net/org with all on a same level field, and
> open competition for anyone who wants to run com/net/org in the future.

Again, that's at the REGISTRAR level. At the registry level, it's a
for-profit
situation for EIGHT YEARS. That's the "future."

> You always say that you want competition. Why do you not want a competing
> bid for the running of the registry? Scared that IOD might lose? Scared
that
> IOD doesn't have a working business plan unless it is granted a monopoly?
> Doesn't sound competitive to me.

No, sounds socialistic, at best.

Christopher