-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Esther,
I can appreciate your feeling that the scope of the testbed should be
limited and controllable. However, read between the lines: These
people are saying that you have not included those most expert in this
area as part of the decision process. I certainly hope this approach
will change and allow for greater participation in the very near
future.
Gene Marsh
Diebold Incorporated / anycastNET Incorporated
- -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 10:13 PM
To: Chris Oakes
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: URGENT/Press/ take 2
Importance: Low
Let me add: We understand perfectly that this situation is not ideal,
but
it is temproary, and two months is a short time. There will be enouhg
glitches getting this test going that we do not expect it to give
anyone a
competitive edge. Those who come after will learn from it without
going
through all the pain. As you know, a number of the provisions
concerning
NIS and pricing are likely to change after the test.
I don't want to sound cavalier, but as the Justice Department has
often said
with regard to Microsoft in particular and competition in general, our
job
is to foster competition, not to protect competitors.
Esther
At 02:02 PM 26/04/99 -0700, Chris Oakes wrote:
>Hi Esther and Mike --
>
>Writing to see if ICANN has responded, or wants to respond, to the
>complaints of Jeff Field over the testbed period.
>
>
>He forwarded me a copy of a mail he says he sent to you as well as
the DOC.
>
>Any reaction? Per usual, I'm on the Wired News news deadline.
>
>Thanks!
>
>CHris
>
>
>><--- start copy of email --->
>>
>>Mike (and Ms. Dyson),
>>
>>Thank you for your reply. I and everyone here at NameSecure.com are
also
>>looking forward to an open and competitive marketplace for domain
names.
>>In that regard...
>>
>>Perhaps I was not clear about our concerns as to the *severely*
detrimental
>>effect the testbed period as currently planned could have on not
only our
>>company but all 29 of the post-testbed registrars. Please permit me
take a
>>stab at it again...
>>
>>As I understand things going forward, the testbed period begins
Monday, the
>>26th and is scheduled to last 60 days. During the 60 days (which
will
>>undoubtedly last longer) Network Solutions will be charging anyone
that
>>registers a name through them $70. They are, according to the
documents,
>>obligated to charge this legacy fee during the length of the testbed
>>period. The five testbed registrars, however, may charge any price
they
>>wish. Presumably, they could even give it away for free and/or
bundle the
>>registry fee in with services (please correct me if I'm wrong about
any of
>>these assumptions).
>>
>>Assuming the above scenario, that means that during the testbed
period,
>>customers of NameSecure.com will be forced to pay the $70 fee. Now,
one
>>thing you could say to us is, "You will not have to register your
>>customer's domain names through Network Solutions any longer. You
could
>>now register the names through one of the 5 testbed registrars."
And to
>>that I would say, "You're right. We do have that choice. However,
all of
>>our automated back-end systems have been designed to work with
Network
>>Solution's business processes. For us to change all of that for a
60-day
>>period of time (we will ourselves be a registrar after the 60 days)
would
>>require an *enormous* amount of time, effort and money. It would
force us
>>to divert all of our resources away from our efforts to become a
>>registrar." I don't believe you could truly expect us to do that.
Please
>>correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>>So, assuming that we are not forced to change all of our back-end
systems,
>>what potential position does that leave NameSecure.com in? It
leaves us in
>>a position of our customers having to pay a $70 registration fee
while at
>>the same time one of the testbed registrars is giving it away for
free or
>>at cut-rate prices. Our business could dry up to a trickle during
the
>>60-day testbed period. By the end of the 60 days, we could be
either out
>>of business or severely crippled. I'm sure that it is not your
intention
>>to drive the 29 accredited post-testbed registrars out of business
during
>>the 60-day period, however, as the plans to go forward currently
stand, it
>>could happen. Let me try to be even clearer about this...
>>
>>Let's say you have a town with ten gas stations in it. And you say,
"For
>>the next 60 days, five of you can sell gas for 50 cents a gallon,
but the
>>other five have to charge 1 dollar." Obviously, I, and I'm sure
you,
>>wouldn't want to be one of the stations that has to charge a buck.
But
>>this is exactly the position that NameSecure.com now finds itself
in.
>>We're one of the stations that is going to for at least 60 days
charge a
>>buck while the testbed registrars can charge 50 cents (or give it
away for
>>free). And as you know, in Internet time, 60 days is a long long
time. We
>>will do everything we can to make sure this plan does not go forward
under
>>this scenario. But...
>>
>>I believe there is a simple answer to all this. As I stated before,
until
>>the testbed period is over and until the additional accredited
registrars
>>have had a reasonable chance to test and implement their own
connections to
>>the registry, the current $70 registry fee should be charged by
*all*
>>participants. In addition, no additional services should be allowed
to be
>>bundled in with the registry fee. Then, once everyone has had a
>>*reasonable* chance to get ready, set a date for everyone to begin
>>competing on prices and services. This will truly level the playing
field
>>for all and will negate much of the advantage (real or imagined)
that has
>>been handed to the testbed participants. Simple, huh?
>>
>>As you know, we've been living under a non-competitive environment
in
>>domain names for a long time. Everyone maintains that the testbed
period
>>is required to "maintain the stability of the Internet." Well, I'm
asking,
>>"What about the stability of the 29 post-testbed registrar
participants?"
>>Will another four months or so of a non-competitive environment
really hurt
>>if it ensures that the post-testbed participants are in a better
position
>>to compete?
>>
>>I hope I'm now making this clear for you both. I anxiously await
your
>>response. Time is of the essence. The testbed period starts
Monday!
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>><--- end copy of email --->
>>
>
> Chris Oakes
> Technology Writer
> Wired News (www.wired.com)
> 415.276.8538
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBNyU9RpHtPfG6xLnPEQL2PQCfV1ibtfIRynaZ+xNArcABGLI0/x8AoPiR
ejLKZRIHfC1tEtLutWHcDZzo
=ETPh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
