___________________________________________________________________________
____
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.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
I have no opinion on your last question. As to participation, the Working
Groups are open to participation by anyone who is interested, subject to
getting too big to be useful. But even if that point is reached in any
particular group, those who participate are certainly free to communicate
with others on progress and issues, and the results are open to comments
and criticism by anyone, without limitation. The Working Groups should be
as accessible as is compatible with getting something done, but to the
extent anyone is left out, there will be plenty of opportunity to make your
views known, in public so that all can see. For this reason, the DNSO
should have an incentive to get all possible views included in the WGs, so
that they don't have to start over when the public comments on the WG
results.
(Embedded
image moved "Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 06/21/99 02:13 PM
pic02843.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Your Nando story
At 11:46 AM 6/21/99 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>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.
Fair enough Joe, but in comparison to other huge anti-trust cases
the barier to entry to setting up competing businesses is very, very
low.
And I don't really see a way around this unless you seed a (new) registry
with 6 million clients, $50M woeth of infrastructure and a staff of around
250;
that's clearly not going to happen.
But what we do see happening is, when new tlds are made available, like
.per
or .nu, and are run well, they do make some decent progress in spite of the
fact they may not be the most palattable names on the planet.
So, we're not asking to be made an equal to NSI. We're asking to be given a
chance, period.
Maybe you and Mike Roberts (cf. the www.pc-radio.com interview) are right
and there will be a huge problem with "another monopoly". But if you
prevent
this from ever happening, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you're
right by assertion, not empirical observation.
But to be prejudged, without being given a chance, I can't think of
anything
less equitable.
In other words, Joe, what if your'e wrong ?
>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.
As somebody that hasn't been involved in the DNS wars for vweey long
that might seem to be sufficient to you Joe, but the "new gTLD" committee
is who exactly ? All I know about it is Javeier (ex PAB rep to POC)
told Ambler the committee was "full" and his input wasn't needed.
Where's the balance in that ?
And what is it exactly this committee is supposed to find out exactly?
We've
been doing this for FOUR YEARS. What is it you'd like to know?
Ask the questins here, on this list. The people most qualified to answer
them
hang out here and would, I'm sure, be happy to listen and answer questions
in a public and open forum as opposed to a restricted group of selected
indivifuals meeting, once again, in secret.
Ignore all this as rhetor if you want, Joe, but do me the favour of
answering just one question - please.
Do you think the CORE model should apply to all new tlds, or do you think
both models should be allowed to run in parallel? I'd be sincerely
interested
in your opinion, or if you even have an opinion on this.
--
[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."
pic02843.pcx
