Regarding pricing, NSI is under a cooperative agreement with
the USG, so NSI could not unilaterally set pricing. The
pricing was negotiated with the USG. We could not release
any pricing until we had approval from the Department of
Commerce.
Contrary to what you think, there are contractual
requirements that each registrar must fulfill that require
time. If the names had been submitted to NSI with even half
the lead time required in the cooperative agreement, all of
these requirements could have been met well before the start
of the testbed.
Each registrar was supplied the SRS information when they
met the contractual requirements.
Chuck Gomes
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Onno
Hovers
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 5:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IFWP] Re: [IDNO:402] wire update
In article
<001101beb816$7b69b8b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,37856,00.html
> It is worthy to note that ALL the delays can be laid at
ICANN's
> door-step. They were extremely lax in getting the list of
potential
> registrars to NSI.
At the request of the registrars, the ICANN waited for more
information
about pricing and the conditions. However, that information
only became
available at the very last moment. This was publicly posted
on the
ICANN website.
So blaming ICANN for the delays presumes:
(1) That NSI was in its right to wait until the very last
moment before
releasing information about pricing and conditions, that
businesses
do not need to make business plans and calculations
before they
jump in.
(2) That the ICANN was wrong to wait before releasing the
names of the
test-bed registrars, that NSI needed the names of the
registrars
far in advance for some obscure reason. The only reason
why NSI
would need to know the names of the registrars was to
supply them
with the Shared Registry Information. But it has been
published
in the press that NSI failed to supply this information
to at least
one testbed registrar weeks after the test-bed had
begun. And NSI
could have provided an open Shared Registry System,
instead of all
those silly NDAs.
(3) You know why the the moment that the list of potential
registrars
was released is the reason of the delays. If that is
true you are
inside information. This is information that the
registrars
may not even publish since they are under a heavy NDA.
In other words, laying the blame for the delays at ICANN's
door-step
is totally unreasonable. But this is just another small
example of the
total lack of reason that is coming from the opponents of
the ICANN.
Like just grabbing and claiming TLDs and then barking
against any
public process that may interfere with 'their' TLDs.
Like blasting the membership committee for being too
inclusive and
suggesting a free membership after demanding a general
membership
and bitching at the high costs of participating in the ICANN
meetings.
Like demanding a DNSO with only individual membership or a
non-commercial
constituency without ISOC.
Like blaming ICANN for making policy without being fully
accountable,
while not talking about how NSI is making policy while being
fully
unaccountable.
Like throwing Kent Crispin and Dave Crocker from the IDNO
mailinglist
when all the other mailinglists put up with the likes of
Jeff Williams,
Bob Allisat and Jim Fleming.
I can't blame ICANN for trying to keep such unreasonable
people out,
although I doubt whether that is the right way. The MoU side
is also
not always reasonable, but in the land of the blind the
one-eyed
man is king.
> However, I also see NSI trying to do some positive things.
Like what? Like selling private information of the
registrants
without giving the registrants an opportunity to opt-out?
Like
turning the neutral internic.net site into a a giant
dot-com-people
commercial one month before the registrar side competition
was
to begin? Like arbitrarily changing the whois output without
advance warning? Like requiring heavy NDAs from competing
registrars? Like making it almost impossible to change
registrars? Like promising the IDNO a gTLD constituency
seat when NSI knew that it could not deliver?
> For Esther to try and turn these into negatives does not
speak well
> for the process. It firmly places the ICANN into the
NSI-bashers club.
> I believe that is an inappropriate place, for an
organization that
> purports itself to be the Internet governance platform of
choice.
NSI is doing wrong. ICANN has every right to say so, and to
put
pressure on the US DoC to make the registrar side
competition more
than a sham. Are you saying that the ICANN should be an
organization
like the UN, an organization that can't bash China when
China is
wiping its ass with the declaration of human rights again?
No thanks.
--
Onno Hovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
