>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 9 10:58:39 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.226])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05B6F02F
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from hawk (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236])
> by condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA14260;
> Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:52:47 -0700
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "Esther Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson)>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what to write?
>Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:52:46 -0700
>Message-ID: <00ab01beca1a$b510cc50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Importance: Normal
>
>According to ICANN, you would have to charge $1US per domain, as a floor
>price. I don't see provisions for "free" registries. You would have to
>operate outside of the ICANN scope.
>
>Personally, I don't think ICANN's revenue plan is well thought-out at
>all, mainly because they've come to it so very late. It's a desperation
>move because their funding model is not working (as I knew it wouldn't,
>as I said it wouldn't). Ergo, they're slapping this
>"per-domain-per-year" charge on at the last dying second. Since they've
>never laid any of the ground-work for this, and none of the
>fore-thought, they ain't got all the bases covered and it is going to be
>rejected. They'll become "out of funds", dry up, and blow away, unless
>someone hits them with a really big clue-bat. Their value-proposition
>doesn't have much value, for the money, CA non-profit status is killing
>them (as I knew it would). There's a LOT of dough out there to run an
>ICANN-like organization (infrastructure play), but none of it wants to
>be a non-profit.This is the time of the mega-buck Internet play, that's
>where all the [investment] money is going.
>
>If you think that this is a great big "I told you so" [to the
>pro-non-profit camp], y'all would be correct. Also, lawyers [Simms]
>shouldn't ever be allowed to dictate the structure of a corp and CEO's,
>as well as BoD members, had better understand corporate law almost as
>well as the lawyers do. Let's learn the lessons and move forward.
>
>--------------------
>Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
>Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
>http://www.mhsc.com/
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>--------------------
>Lead; Follow; Get out of the way.
> ... pick ONE!
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>> Behalf Of William X. Walsh
>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 10:38 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what
>> to write?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:38:08 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >At 12:04 AM 7/9/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
>> >><shrug> I just meant to list the sorts of pressures that
>> have moved DNS
>> >>issues squarely out of the realm of the technical. I
>> understand that some
>> >>entrepreneurs want *un*shared registries--they could make
>> lots of money as
>> >>the sole holders of them--while others want a piece of a
>> registry: witness
>> >>the number of companies seeking to join the shared
>> registration system for
>> >>.com, .net, and .org. And, the White Paper--which I think
>> I've seen you
>> >>call a consensus document at times--does reference the idea. I
>> >>dunno. Doesn't seem like bias to me to simply include it
>> on the list, but
>> >>I suppose he who has the blinders on doesn't readily know what he's
>> >>missing. ...JZ
>> >
>> >Uh, I don't think the guy doing .FREE was planning
>> >on being "an entrapeneur wanting to make a lot
>> >of money". Some people probably do, while others
>> >hum the cost recovery mantra.
>> >
>> >Shared/non-shared, registry/registrar vs. peered registry,
>> >non-profit/for-profit/low-profit...
>> >it's a big mix and there's a lot of permutations
>> >and combinations. Again, all the world's not
>> >.com and there are too many applications of the
>> >DNS to be covered under a single homogensous model,
>> >no matter how well it may or may not work for .com.
>>
>> Our .BOX would be setup as a $5/2 year service.
>> Oh yeah, we would get real rich on that. NOT.
>>
>> We are going ahead with it anyway, we have setup a third level
>> registry to mirror registrations under, and will operate it for free
>> at the moment.
>>
>> When I was with ML.org we talked quite frequently about how it would
>> be great to operate a totally free user supported registry for second
>> level domains under a free TLD.
>>
>> This constant idea of there being a single workable model for TLDs is
>> absolutely wrong. ML.org operated a 3rd level registry with WELL over
>> 150,000 domains when it was shut down (I never got the final number
>> before it was closed, but estimates from a member of the board put the
>> number just short of 200,000). DHS.org, formed by some former ml.org
>> staff, currently is just short of 30,000 domains in their free 3rd
>> level registry. People who need personal domains WILL support
>> non-profit and low profit models. Some people who need commercial
>> domains but are willing to live with a much lower level of service
>> guarantee in exchange for the low entry cost would also support these
>> models.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William X. Walsh
>> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
>>
>> "The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
>> characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
>> --Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
>> -
>> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To
>> unsubscribe,
>> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
>>
>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
