Chuck and all,
I don't believe that John really means that, but I do believe that ICANN
does in many situations or ICANN wishes to FORCE NSI and other
root operators into a contractual agreement in which there is no
negotiational flexibility, which is contract to standard practice in these
sorts of circumstances, and is in effect mandating a business model
structure. This is also not to mention that ICANN is doing so without
the mandate of the stakeholder community to a very large degree,
and in violation of the precepts of the White Paper.
I believe this is commonly known as prima fascia evidence of
anti trust and even possibly conspiracy to commit fraud.
I for one hope that NSI and no ISP or other root server operator
or other root server structure signs such an agreement.
Chuck Gomes wrote:
> John,
>
> Let me see if I get this straight. It's okay for ICANN to establish
> policies that affect the NSI Registry even if the NSI registry has no
> representation?
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Charles Broomfield [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 1999 3:30 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from Mike Roberts re: gTLD Constituency
> > Group
> >
> > Hi Jay,
> > It would seem that you agree with my analysis. It would also seem
> > that you find that the current gTLD registry constituency is flawed.
> >
> > Would you propose to eliminate the gTLD registry constituency from
> > any
> > voting rights until there is consensus on how it should be formed?
> > I presume you *will* agree that just rushing into a fast change on
> > the gTLD registry constituency would be folish at least.
> >
> > I agree that there is a problem with the fact that there is a
> > constituency with just one member. The problem is *cosmetically* worse in
> > that
> > this member is NSI. Just in the same way that a constituency with just one
> > member being ISOC would be shouted down as unfair.
> >
> > I don't quite get why you do the apples and pears comparison in
> > saying that the registrAR constituency has many members, and thus it is
> > unfair towards the registrY constituency. AFAIK, *all* the other
> > constituencies have more than one member, and there is GENERAL consensus
> > that they are representative of that constituency (yes Michael, I know you
> > don't agree and never will, but your one voice doesn't make overwhelming
> > opposition). The problem is not with the other constituencies, but with
> > the
> > gTLD registry constituency.
> >
> > Just in the same way that there has been an open commented process
> > to establish the guidelines and rules for registrar acreditation, there
> > should be a similar process for acreditation of prospective registries.
> > However, for the registrars, the objective was clear: to permit
> > registration
> > in shared gTLDs.
> > For the prospective registries that you name, well NSI is already
> > there... two of the others (IOD & Iperdome) lay claim to particular
> > gTLDs.
> > As for now, the objective of the future companies that would wish
> > to
> > be registries is not clear. Sure that the IOD & Iperdome know what they
> > would LIKE to do, but I think you'll agree that we are quite far from
> > consensus on the following issues:
> > -Can a registry choose on its own accord what gTLD it wants to "create"?
> > -Can a registry lay claim to a gTLD?
> > -Can a registry run more than one gTLD?
> > -Is a registry allowed to make more profits than a cost-plus scenario?
> > -Can ICANN re-compete on a regular basis the management of ANY registry
> > with
> > no prior prejudice of the registry running it up unto that moment? (IE
> > that
> > a competition for the running of a registry takes the position that any
> > company that wants to run a given registry starts out on equal footing
> > than
> > any other).
> > -Is it up to the registry to decide how the registrars can interact with
> > it?
> > -Is a registry allowed to bundle other products services, or is it
> > mandated
> > to give a barebones minimum running of the registry?
> > -How is the whois service to be run?
> >
> > I think you'll also agree that depending on how those questions
> > are
> > answered, and how the enforcement is made, then the actual companies that
> > DO
> > choose to run a registry will differ greatly from those companies that
> > would
> > choose to do so under a different set of circumstances.
> >
> > In other words, the *prospective* membership of the gTLD
> > constituency is very different depending on what those answers are. Given
> > that, don't you find it VERY premature to rush into adding random
> > prospective registries?
> >
> > Yours, John Broomfield.
> >
> > > > -currently only NSI is in the gTLD registry group
> > >
> > > This is the problem. Prospective registries such as CORE, Iperdome
> > > and (dare I say) Image Online Design should be in this constituency.
> > >
> > > To deny them admission (which, by the way, I understand NSI supports) is
> > > unfair.
> > >
> > > The board says only 1 vote for NSI since their the only member, but then
> > > denies others membership based on their very strict definition of the
> > > membership.
> > > I note that the registrar constituency doesn't have this problem.
> > >
> > > Hardly fair.
> > >
> > > > -ICANN asks NSI to *voluntarily* name just one, and thus everyone
> > would be
> > > > happy. (As soon as the gTLD registry constituency has more members,
> > > whoever
> > > > they name to the NC is their business).
> > >
> > > And NSI says fine, admit more members and thus everyone would be happy.
Regards,
--
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
