___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
obviously, there are potential benefits to adding more TLDs, although the
reason NSI doesn't oppose it has little to do with its charitable spirit
and more to do with the fact that it will take a long time for .shop or
.firm to be a true competitive alternative to .com. Since this is the
case, it would be much better for NSI's bottom line for it to remain the
monopoly provider of .com names, and have to compete with some others
trying to sell some other, less-effectively branded, domain, than it would
be to have to give up its .com monopoly position (and the monopoly rents
that come with it). We need some economic reality in this discussion;
whatever else NSI's flaws, it understands where the money is. In any
event, we have asked the DNSO to look at new gTLDs, which are an important
subject, but a lower priority than opening up .com to competition.
(Embedded
image moved "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 06/21/99 11:31 AM
pic10225.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Your Nando story
Not to put too fine a point on all this but if you want real
competition, open up the roots and add a hundred
or a thousand new top level domain names, as Jons original
plan outlined.
Will NSI do this ? Yes. Ask them yourself if they are willing
to do this.
Will DoC let them do this ?
No. The trademark lobby, big business and world governments
have "had their say".
Will Jay Fenello running .PER be the worst thing that ever happened to the
net ? I don't know Joe and *neither do you*. Will CORE running .NOM be the
worth thing that happened to the net ? Again, neither one of us *knows*
although
we both have our own beliefs.
The one difference, and it's a *significant* difference, is, CORE would
like to see only it's TLDS added to the root, whereas "our camp" would
like to see CORES's and all the other ones added and the users
can vote with it's wallets in a true free market.
That's *real* competition.
"The Internet solves problems of scarcity by creating new resources,
not by regulation" - BKR
At 09:37 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
_
>____
>
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If
you
>are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication
to
>others; also please
> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
>your system. Thank you.
>__________________________________________________________________________
_
>____
>
>In the interests of full disclosure, I am the outside lawyer for ICANN.
>This was a good job of regurgitating the NSI story, but it was a little
>short on accuracy. ICANN is hardly operating "under the vague auspices of
>the Commerce Department;" Commerce in fact went through two rounds of
>extensive public comment before inviting the Internet community to form
>what became ICANN, and it ultimately entered into a Memorandum of
>Understanding with ICANN that clearly sets forth the relationship. All
>this information is available on the DOC/NTIA website if you had bothered
>to look. And it is not ICANN's members who "claim" that they are charged
>with ending NSI's monopoly -- it is the DOC documents and the agreements
>that NSI has entered into with DOC that set forth that goal. (By the way,
>the notion that NSI was doing this on its own before this process started
>is a joke; would you like to buy a bridge? When was the last monopoly you
>know of that voluntarily introduced competition?) You go on to say that
>"records of their meetings are not public;" this is simply not true, and
>the fact that you were apparently told this should make you worry about
>accuracy of the other things that NSI or its agents told you. The minutes
>of all meetings are made public; all Board meetings are preceded by an
open
>public meeting that deals with all items on the Board agenda; and the
Board
>holds a press conference to announce decisions and take questions from all
>comers, press and others, immediately following its meetings. Finally,
the
>"Internet tax" canard: what do you call the fee that NSI charges to
accept
>a name registration, and even more obviously the fee ($35) it charges to
>renew a registration -- an act that has virtually no cost at all to NSI?
I
>would call it a monopoly tax -- 35 times the fee that ICANN proposes to
>charge for providing the vehicle that allowed the introduction of
>competition that will almost certainly drive down NSI's monopoly charge
far
>more than $1. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this
>debate, and not simply repeat NSI's propaganda, you need to do a little
>more independent research.
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The old man was asked, why were these men and boys willing to stand up to
the
mightiest army in the world? Was it the taxes on tea and other imports? No,
he
said. Was it the thinking from all the great books coming from Europe? No,
books
were rare and precious things which most couldn't afford. Then, he was
asked again,
WHY? His answer was... "Because they were of a mind to govern us and we
were of a
mind to govern ourselves."
Lotus Organizer
