Kerry, normally I find your thoughts in these ongoing discussions
very enlightening, but in this case I am very disappointed...
(See detail below your comments just below)
Kerry Miller wrote:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bliley-response-08july99.htmSome observations on your response here to ICANN's (Excerpt...ICANN "decisions" are nothing more than the recognition of
community consensus, and require voluntary compliance by a
large number of independent actors to have any effect at all...Even with the relatively limited amount of competition that has
begun for name registrations, no accredited registrar has yet to
offer services at a rate higher than the $35 charged by NSI, and
thus both NSI's $9 registry fee and the $1 cost recovery fee due to
ICANN are being absorbed by the registrars, not paid by users, and
presumably being reflected in lower operating margins than might
otherwise exist.
above this comment), are as follows:
- I doubt that Tom Bililey if stupid enough to even consider that
Esther Dyson, speaking for ICANN is going to believe her response
(The excerpt you provided above), "ICANN "decisions" are
nothing
more than the recognition of community consensus".
This
response is easily refuted by huge margins in ICANN's own comments
archive mail deposit at, http://www.icann.org/feedback.html.
- Only partial "Competition" has been provided by ICANN with two
new Registrars, Registry.com and Melbourne IT offering
registration
ability in .com, .net and .org. Not additional REGISTRY
competition
has been introduced.
- The current Accreditation Agreement/Policy that ICANN has "imposed"
without verifiable "Community Consensus", locks-in a specific
business
model for any potential REGISTRAR that might sign it (See
section P
of Accreditation Agreement).
- No price competition has been introduced as none of the thus far
"ICANN Accredited Registrars" as offering registrants
a price cheaper
than NSI does correctly, and offer even less flexibility
and services
due to a very poor SRS implementation and Whois facility.
This remains to be seen, and given the restrictions of the Accreditation... even just a $2 reduction in the average cost of an annual name
registration would save consumers approximately than $20 million
annually,Note 6: ...it seems reasonable to expect that the fee that NSI will
eventually be [*]permitted[*] to charge for accessing the registries
that it operates will be significantly lower than the $9 temporary
charge that is now permitted.
Agreement that all potential registrars MUST sign without possibility
of a negotiated amendments, makes this unlikely.
I strongly disagree here and so do our [INEGroup] members, some----
>From these quotes (and the fact that NSIs $35 annual fee for
registering is mentioned 7 times), one is obviously to conclude that
NSI grossly overcharges; that with a bit of competition the price to
the registrant will drop, and that a $1 surcharge to support ICANN
(thus $10m /yr) is hardly anything to be concerned about.
95k strong. Giving ICANN the right to effectively tax for each Domain name
registered, is dangerous without that fee being approved by some membership
model or government oversight. This is ripe for abuse by future ICANN
management, a la public utilities and corporations like ADM for instance.
- Again, I strongly disagree as do the membership of [INEGroup],Nevertheless, it is also evident that ICANN can hardly afford for NSI
to remain outside its registrar's agreement/ contract, and thus the
legitimacy of calling that contract 'voluntary' is seriously
undermined. In short, ICANN's argument is that *if* everyone
agreed to support ICANN, the overhead would not be a problem;
therefore they *should* agree, voluntarily.
ORSC, BWG, IDNO, ISP/C ISPA, many of the members of the
ISOC, over 30 chapters of the ICC ( Internet Chamber of Commerce).
Only if the Accreditation Agrement/Policy is severely amended as to
regulation so as to allow for multiple business models for potential
Registrars, and there is also multiple REGISTRIES with compatible
minimal regulation that allow for expansion of the DNS system and
open access to any and all Root Server structures, keeping in mind
that privacy issues be met.
Agreed here Kerry, and it is obvious that either the legal adviceThe fact remains that the total ground for expecting NSI to
understand this point rests (note 3) "in fact, in Amendment 11,
[where] NSI agreed to support the transition of USG DNS
responsibilities to 'NewCo,' (now ICANN), agreed to 'recognize
NewCo pursuant to a contract between NSI and NewCo,['] and
agreed that ICANN would have 'the authority . . . to carry out
[ICANN's] responsibilities.' "Admittedly, its lawyerly writing in the finest tradition, but ICANN
collectively, and its members individually, might have been wise to
practice a bit of lawyerly *reading before sticking their heads in the
DNS mess.
(Joe Simms) have not done this or that Joe SImms has to the point of
purposefully leaving out a necessary check for accountability by the
ICANN membership (Stakeholders) that is required as part of the
requirements of the White Paper.
This would be a better play for ICANN to have embarked upon from theIndeed Amendment 11 states, a couple paragraphs earlier,
"Commencing upon the Phase 1 deployment of the Shared
Registration System, and for the term of this agreement, NSI's
prices for registry services through the Shared Registration System
in the gTLDs for which NSI now acts as the registry, will be no
more than a dollar amount per registration/year to be specified in a
further amendment [not yet written] reflecting NSI's costs and a
reasonable return on its investment. This price cap will be adjusted
via an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement to reflect
demonstrated changed costs of NSI arising from newly enacted
legislation, [*]NewCo fees[*], inflation, regulations, standards,
costs of new litigation (including settlements and judgments)
in excess of NSI's operating plan or changes in the operation of the
registry, or to fund specific additional activities in the event such
activities are reflected in an amendment to the Cooperative
Agreement."In short, NSI is to be reimbursed all its expenses. If it did come to
the point of paying ICANN anything at all, I'd bet NSI immediately
bills ICANN to get it back again, plus costs. ICANN may, willy-
nilly, find itself in the business of running a competing *registry* --
and shouldnt every devout free-enterpriser be ready to cough up a
dollar to help them make the play?
beginning, and would have met with broad support had they done so.
Regards,kerry
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
