john and all,
Johnney my lad, you have some serious reality problems here...
Lets review them by the numbers. (See below your comments
for further details)
John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> > Where do I send my bid for the .IBM registry? How about the .AOL
> > registry, as I'd like to run that, too.
> > How about if I bid $0 to run the .ATT, .MCI and .SPRINT registries?
> > Wake up.
> > Christopher Ambler
>
> A guess at a more likely scenario follows:
> Being a bit more realistic, any TLD that gets added will very
> unlikely be because any single company solehandedly decides that a) its a
> good idea for that TLD to exist and b) they want to run it.
Your (a) may be close to correct but your reason (b) is certainly not.
If your (b) was there would be no new registries or TLD's. That is highly
unlikely...
>
> The chances are higher that it will be that anything that sounds reasonable
> and doesn't have an enormous wave of objections can get added. A small bunch
> initially (5-50?), and then if things seem ok, maybe a bunch more.
Agreed.
>
> Once everyone is ok with WHAT is going to be added, or more probably, those
> initial choices get cut down because some say "hey, I've got a claim on
> that" etc... leaving a smaller uncontested bunch, then ICANN would probably
> say "ok guys, the following TLDs are going to be added. I have the ultimate
> say over how they are going to be run, and I need someone to put forward a
> registry infrastructure that will leave the data portable -in case I choose
> to go elsewhere-, and be interfaceable to registrars with an interface that
> conforms to these specs. I will put this job up for tender again in X
> (12-36?) months. I am offering $X to run it"
Whom is this "I" you are referring to? ICANN? Well ICANN is supposed to
be a "We" not and "I". And if it isn't than ICANN will just be routed around
and the DNS will be split or fragmented. This does not need to occur
however, and their are several ways around not having it occur either..
>
>
> So it's not that you pay ICANN to "get" a registry, but rather that you will
> be paid to run a registry on behalf of ICANN. This payment might be through
> a direct payment from ICANN, or that the registrars might pay you on a
> per-transaction basis or whatever.
THis METHOD is one possible solution, but the ICANN Board will not
be making this decision, the membership will or should be. If the
At-Large membership does not, than this will not stand.
>
>
> Your "bid" will be to ICANN, and it will be "Hi ICANN, I've got stable
> infrastructure and can do the job you want me to do at a great price". If
> you don't want to play via ICANNs rules, someone else is sure to do so (CORE
> had a few different companies offering for much the same as described
> above), but don't expect to be able to force your way onto ICANNs playground
> on your rules. You keep your own rules for your own playground (as you've
> done so up to now).
Much of this will depend on HOW and WHOM will be determining what
those RULES are. If they are not consensus based (Measurable Consensus
that is) than the ICANN will implode in upon itself.
>
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.
>
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
