Roberto and all, First let me say, that this is an interesting post of yours Robeto, and quite reveling as to what the real agenda of the DNSO.ORG bunch are maneuvering for. (See below for the rest of our comments) Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Christopher, > > The fact that we disagree on some points, and that this disagreement is so > deep that cannot be possibly eliminated, does not mean that we cannot agree > on specific practical issues. > > Let me make an example. > > I am absolutely convinced that to have not-for-profit gTLD Registries will > be the best thing. Why Roberto? Why cannot there be a neutral stance on this issue? Why cannot there be for-profit registries for gTLD's? > > > Nevertheless, I am also convinced that NSI will never give up its golden egg > chicken, and that nobody has the right to impose them to give it away. Also, > even if NSI will split Registrar and Registry activities, I doubt thet their > business model will concentrate the profit in the Registrar part. As it should Roberto, after all they are a publicly held company and many people hold stock in that company, such as myself. It would be poor business decision to operate their registry business in a non-profit manner. > > > Moreover, if we have one for-profit Registry, it does not seem practically > feasible that if we create more, they have to be all non-for-profit. It will > be discriminatory on the others. Why would more for-profit registries be discriminatory? What is the rational for this position? How do you justify this from a policy point of view? > > > OTOH, if we go to the practical issue of allocating new gTLDs and assigning > them to Registries, I am sure that we can come to an agreement dictated by > realpolitik: in other words, I may be (religiously?) against new for-profit > Registries, but may live with them. You will have to live with them. No set of policies can dictate the business model of any registry that is handling any gTLD or is a registrar or registry for said gTLD. To do so would be against US law and also against most other countries legal business structure as well. > > > (this is the difference between practicing your religion and imposing it to > others) Agreed. However it is now clear and we (INEGroup) have suspected for some time now, that this is the aim of the DNSO.ORG bunch. In other words the DNSO.ORG (Leadership?) wants to impose as a matter of structure and incorporate through policy suggestions to the ICANN, a strictly non-profit approach to the expanding of the DNS Name space with gTLD's by making the requirements for charter to a potential registry/registrar have certain language included in those charters that excludes them form using a for-profit business model in their application. > > > Anyway, maybe you're right, but I would like to try. > > Roberto > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christopher Ambler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 11 January 1999 01:43 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: DNSO - then what? > > > > Roberto Said... > > >> These are the arguments we've been unable to reach a > > >> consensus upon for the past 3-4 years. What makes anyone > > >> think that in new DNSO packaging we'll suddenly find ourselves > > >> in agreement? > > >> > > >We will not, but the main difference is that while in the past we were > > >allowed to scream each one in our corner, with the DNSO in place we may > > be > > >in the same room (or mainling list) with the need to take a decision for > > >formulating a proposal to ICANN. > > > > Exactly my point. We've been at this for 4 years now. What makes you > > think that we'll be able to reach consensus in order to give that > > proposal to the ICANN? We've all been on the same mailing lists > > for 4 years and we've not come up with consensus. Nothing will > > change by calling it a DNSO. We'll still not be able to reach consensus, > > and the DNSO will never be able to submit a proposal to the ICANN > > unless it's done without consensus. > > > > More likely, whomever is elected to the DNSO board will make up > > a draft, "listen to input," and then submit their plan to the ICANN. > > > > We've been through this already. What's changed that will make > > it any different this time around? > > > > Christopher > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
