Re: [IFWP] Esther Dyson Sells Out Internet Community

[Anonymous]

Hi Michael,

In my previous response, I copied David Post's:

    Governing Cyberspace, 
 or 
   Where is James Madison When We Need Him?

Here's the rest of my reply, as promised:


At 05:32 PM 6/7/99 , Michael Schneider wrote:
>>In the past, Esther has claimed to be fighting for sound and transparent
>>processes, protection against capture, and fair, open and pro-competitive
>>processes as prescribed in the White Paper.  
>>
>>Well, I'm not buying it any longer.  In decision after decision, she has
>>voted with the rest of the ICANN Board to step on these ideals, and has
>>pursued an agenda that can only be described in a most contrarian way.
>>
>>The recently concluded Berlin meeting was her defining moment.  Instead of
>>fighting to ensure a fair DNSO, she supported a gamed DNSO controlled by
>>those friendly to the gTLD-MoU that preceded ICANN.  Then, in the now
>>familiar ICANN style, the ICANN Board gave this gamed DNSO their blessing
>>to approve the WIPO report.  
>
>This statement bothers me in a number of ways:
>
>First, I had the impression in Berlin - for the first time - that the Board
>was presenting a common front and operating in masterly fashion. As you
>know, I've been a consistent critic of the processes leading to the
>selection of the current Board. Right up to this present moment, nobody has
>been able to give me a convincing explanation why other people with
>significantly more experience with regard to ICANN's responsibilities
>weren't appointed to the Board. There are other reasons as well to
>criticise the composition of the Board (as a representative of ISP
>interests I have to reiterate that we're clearly underrepresented).
>
>However - this is all ancient history now. The Board is up and running, and
>we should judge it simply by how well it does its job. 


Agreed . . .  

And as I understood it, this *interim* board
was supposed to work towards the vision as
outlined in the White Paper:

“We are looking for a globally and functionally representative organization,
operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that protect against
capture by self-interested factions, and that provides robust, professional
management.  The new entity’s processes need to be fair, open, and
pro-competitive.  And the new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving to
reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders.” Becky Burr on
the White Paper,
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov
/ntiahome/press/dnsburr.htm>

This they have not done -- not even close!


>And although I was
>critical at first, I've changed my opinion. For example, I thought
>Kraaijenbrink's appearance at the ICANN open meeting in Singapore was very
>good. He demonstrated that we aren't talking about people who are
>incompetent or biased - he showed clearly that he has his own views and
>isn't prepared to be pressed into serving any and every cause. I'm also
>willing to assign much more credibility to those members of the Board I've
>been dealing with lately than at the start. Esther Dyson, for example,
>acted very diplomatically during the runup to the Berlin meeting. In my
>view, she was particularly careful not to take sides prematurely (while I
>might have wished I could have won her over more easily, others felt
>exactly the same way).
>
>The Berlin meeting itself went relatively smoothly, I felt. Whether you're
>satisfied with the outcome or not, I don't think you can say that the Board
>gave preferential treatment to anybody. Naturally, I know that reports on
>meetings always reflect the speaker's own sense of achievement - but even
>so, if there was one thing the Board did this time, it was to stand by its
>proclaimed policies as far as reasonably possible. To this extent, I really
>can't understand your complaint.


Sometimes, when you're in the middle of a forest,
you only notice the trees that surround you.  I'm 
complaining about the forest.

I'm complaining about an *interim* board that has
already implemented many policy decisions.  Decisions
that in effect claim ownership over the entire name
space.  Decisions that result in taxation without
representation.  Decisions that extend to the end-
users of the Internet, the very Netizens that this
board has refused representation to.  And of course,
decisions made without any involvement from the 
Internet community.

I'm complaining about an *interim* board that has
been dragging its feet on replacing itself with a
legitimate *initial* board.  After months and months
of deliberations on a membership, we are now told 
that we must have more studies, and we must now 
recruit large numbers of uneducated Netizen's
before elections can take place.


>This brings me to the second point that bothers me somewhat. If I take your
>claim seriously that DNSO is "controlled by those friendly to the
>gTLD-MoU", then this applies to me as well, since I've been elected to the
>provisional N

Re: [IFWP] would someone be kind enough to send me esthers fullresponse which I missed Re: [IFWP] Re: "I represent the little guy" --Esther Dyson as hypocrite

[Gordon Cook]

>why do you dislike ronda hauben, gordon ?
>
>kind regards philippe, A-Z-Internet.com

because she is utterly disconnected from the present reality

The COOK Report on Internet  | New handbook just published:IP Insur-
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of Telecomm.See
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) | http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how to
subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at http://www.cookreport.com

Re: [IFWP] would someone be kind enough to send me esthers full response which I missed Re: [IFWP] Re: "I represent the little guy" -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite

[philippe landau]

why do you dislike ronda hauben, gordon ?

kind regards philippe, A-Z-Internet.com 

--- *** ---

Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from ns1.vrx.net (vrx.net [204.138.71.254]) by falku.pair.com 
(8.9.1/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA26791 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 8 
Jun 1999 14:53:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-Envelope-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (4691 bytes) by ns1.vrx.net   via sendmail with 
P:stdio/D:aliasinclude/R:bind_hosts/T:inet_zone_bind_smtp   (sender: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)  id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>for 
list-outgoing; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:57:26 -0400 (EDT) (Smail-3.2.0.100 
1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
Received: from gromit.edventure.com([206.148.52.66]) (4380 bytes) by 
ns1.vrx.net via sendmail with P:smtp/D:aliases/T:pipe   (sender: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>for 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:57:24 -0400 (EDT)   (Smail-3.2.0.100 
1997-Dec-8 #2 built 1997-Dec-18)
Received: from karachinsky ([139.92.111.107]) by gromit.edventure.com 
 (Post.Office MTA v3.5 release 215 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with SMTP 
 id com for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:09:34 -0400
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson)
Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: "I represent the little guy" -- Esther Dyson as  
hypocrite
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 19:09:34 -0400
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]@karachinsky>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-UIDL: 20fe3cef83b0c142529b9cab86f22322

Gordon, 

One does not have to be 100 percent in agreement with everything in order 
to
stay involved in something.  I think I can do more for the little guy (and
the Net in general) from inside ICANN than from outside. If that changed, 
I
would resign.  (Yes, I have in another case resigned from a board where I
disagreed fundamentally with a decision it made.) I will not resign in a
snit every time I do not get my way.  I make trade-offs, as we all (most 
of
us) do. 

Esther Dyson

>> From: Gordon Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:26 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: "I represent the little guy" -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite
>>
>>
>> Clausing quotes Esther Dyson as saying regarding her service on
>> ICANN "i do
>> not represent corporate interests; I represent the little guy."
>>
>> > .html>http://w
>> ww.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/06/biztech/articles/07ican.html
>>
>> Esther's contempt for the internet is apparently so great that she thinks
>> she can say one thing to the press and have it uncritically
>> accepted by the
>> business community to which she is selling out the interests of
>> individuals
>> and small business and non profit orgs.
>>
>> She apparently believes that the little guy who reads the net on ICANN
>> won't notice the contrast between her actions and her words.  And that if
>> business leaders read it and see her hypocracy they will continue to stay
>> in bed with her anyway. because this is about money, after all,
>> and to hell
>> with personal intergrity.  she needs to take a ticket on the cluetrain.
>>
>> Esther could solve the whole problem she has craeted very easily.
>>
>> I call on her to tell the rest of the Board:  I am not a hypocrite.  i
>> really do believe in the little guy.  i was speaking sincerely in my book.
>> Your attitudes have been forcing me to go against my real beliefs.  ICANN
>> must be open with open board meetings and open processes.  I really do
>> believe this and therefore to demonstrate my fundamental incompatibility
>> with your attitudes, I resign effective immediately.
>>
>> ICANN would then reach a truly defining moment.
>>
>> You can 't have your cake and eat it too Esther - time to choose.  The
>> little guy and your own personal integrity or ICANN and big corporate
>> America.
>> 
>> The COOK Report on Internet  | New handbook just
>> published:IP Insur-
>> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA| gency & Transformation of
>> Telecomm.See
>> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) |
>http://cookreport.com/insurgency.html
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]  | Index to 7 years of COOK Report, how
>to
>subscribe, exec summaries, special reports, gloss at
>http://www.cookreport.com
>
>
>
>
>
>


Esther DysonAlways make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1 (212) 924-8800
1 (212) 924-0240 fax
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New

[IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?

[Kerry Miller]

Ronda,
> > I found the GAO opinion in the FCC Schools and Libraries Corporation
> > issue and it seems to shed quite a bit of light on how in fact
> > ICANN is a U.S. government created corporation and is in violation
> > of laws forbidding the U.S. Executive to create such corporations
> > as the U.S. Dept of Commerce has created ICANN.
> > 
> > The GAO opinion is B-278820.
> 

I see two implications in the docs I found: 1) E-Rate is alive and 
well and USG is not going to dismantle it (or, therefore ICANN) on 
some picayune legal grounds;  2)  Sen Stevens might be worth 
bringing up to date on the DNS mess.

kerry

===
http://www.house.gov/jct/x-59-98.htm

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT of the HOUSE COMMITTEE 
ON WAY AND MEANS  

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION  
 July 31, 1998
  JCX-59-98
 

BACKGROUND AND PRESENT LAW 

On May 7, 1997, the FCC adopted an order to implement the 
principles of section 254 of the Telecommunications Act. This order 
subsequently was modified on June 12, 1998. Under the order, 
charges are imposed on all telecommunications carriers that 
provide service between States, including long distance carriers, 
local service providers, cellular telephone companies, paging 
companies, and payphone companies.  

[...]
The Telecommunications Act is structured to require the provision 
of these discount services and to provide for reimbursement to the 
telecommunications carriers of the costs of providing the discount 
services. The source of the funds for reimbursements is the 
"equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions" by 
telecommunications carriers provided for as a "principle" in the Act. 
The FCC created a fund, capped at $2.25 billion per year, to 
support universal service discounts for schools and libraries. On 
June 12, 1998, this maximum funding amount was reduced to 
$1.925 billion over an 18-month period (January 1, 1998 to June 30, 
1999). Required "contributions" were allocated among covered 
telecommunications carriers based on the carriers' receipts during 
prescribed prior periods.  

In its initial order, the FCC provided that the expanded universal 
service program would be administered by two non-profit 
corporations: the Schools and Libraries Corporation and the Rural 
Health Care Corporation. In its June 12, 1998, revised order, the 
FCC proposed to merge these corporations into the Universal 
Service Administrative Company, which administers other portions 
of the universal service program.(10) In January 1998, the 
Congressional Budget Office issued a determination that the 
"contributions" required to support the universal service program 
are Federal revenues.(11)  

Telecommunications carriers have challenged the "contributions" 
required under the FCC orders, taking the position that the charges 
are in substance taxes, and that if they are authorized, the 
authorization represents an unconstitutional delegation of the 
taxing power by Congress.(12)  


| 10. In a February 10, 1998, letter, the General Accounting Office
| (the "GAO") concluded that the FCC had exceeded its authority
| when it directed that the Schools and Libraries Corporation and
| the Rural Health Care Corporation be created. See, U.S. General
| Accounting Office, Letter to Senator Ted Stevens, February 10,
| 1998 (B-278820).  

[http://www.neca.org/usac.htm 

USAC was created in 1997 as a not-for-profit subsidiary of the 
National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc., and is governed by a 
Board of Directors that includes a broad representation of both 
industry and non-industry interests, including representatives of 
service providers, schools and libraries, health care providers, 
consumers, and state regulatory commissions...

See also http://www.universalservice.org ]  

11. See, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Subsidies of 
Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health 
Care Providers, January 1998. 

12. See, Texas Office of Pub. Utility Counsel v. FCC, Civ. No. 97-
60421, currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the 5th Circuit. 



http://www.arentfox.com/telemed/reports/gao_stevens.html

Office of the General Counsel
B-278820
February 10, 1998

The Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
Dear Senator Stevens:

[...]
The Government Corporation Control Act specifies that “[a]n 
agency may establish or acquire a corporation to act as an agency 
only by or under a law of the United States specifically authorizing 
the action.” 31 U.S.C. § 9102. These entities act as the agents of 
the Commission and, therefore, could only be created pursuant to 
specific statutory authority. Because the Commission has not 
been provided such authority, creation of the two corporations 
violated the Government Corporation Control Act.  

Because the Commission has argued that it did not “establish or 
acquire” the corporations, we provide some background about the 
establishment of the corporations. More detail is contained in the 
attached

[IFWP] register.com

[Bill Lovell]

Here's another:

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0%2C1087%2C3_132441%2C00.html

Bill Lovell

RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect

[Patrick Greenwell]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> Richard Sexton wrote:
>   >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
> > >prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
> > >prospective registrars.
> > 
> > Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] advocating no prepayment???
> > 
> The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
> but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
> It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
> not a level field for competition.

This is a very good point. Will NSI continue to allow people to register
without prepaying via WorldNIC, yet force all other registrars to pay for
any registrations through them, paid or not?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick GreenwellTelocity  http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v  (tinc)   (408) 777-1451 f
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Re: [IFWP] Re: Register.com as Testbed & T&C's (Long)

[Jeff Williams]

Martin and all,

  Woops!  Looks like ICANN stepped into the proverbial "Cow Dung"
again eh?  >;)  But than again we shouldn't be surprised

Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:

> >>wwwtabnet.com (where tabnet.com appears to be a competitor of register.com)?
> >
> >Thats the one that got me.
> >
> >Likley to cause confusion in the mind of the consumer ?
>
> I checked it out and wwwtabnet.com is indeed active and does indeed promote
> the domain name services of register.com.  Who are we to cast aspersions
> without full knowledge of all the relevant facts, but see the
> wwwpainewebber.com case.  Tab.net appears to have been represented, at
> least at one point, by the Gray Cary Ware firm, alleged authors of the
> original NSI policy, and thus presumably know lawyers in the field.
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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

Re: [IFWP] Re: Register.com as Testbed & T&C's (Long)

[Martin B. Schwimmer]

>>wwwtabnet.com (where tabnet.com appears to be a competitor of register.com)?
>
>Thats the one that got me. 
>
>Likley to cause confusion in the mind of the consumer ?

I checked it out and wwwtabnet.com is indeed active and does indeed promote
the domain name services of register.com.  Who are we to cast aspersions
without full knowledge of all the relevant facts, but see the
wwwpainewebber.com case.  Tab.net appears to have been represented, at
least at one point, by the Gray Cary Ware firm, alleged authors of the
original NSI policy, and thus presumably know lawyers in the field.
>

Re: [IFWP] Re: Is US govt hiding its role in ICANN to evade Got Corporate Control Act?

[Ronda Hauben]

Mikki Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Kerry responding to 

Ronda,

>>> The Committee on Science subcommittee on BASIC Research hearing on
>>> March 31 [1998] had some statement to the effect that the U.S. Govt
>>> officials couldn't set up a corporation like the FCC-Schools and
>>> Libraries Corporation.
>>
>>> That this was in violation of the Government Corporation Control Act.
>>
>>> Were the Green and White paper issued to try to go around that law?
>>

>>   You have to go by 'the letter of the law.' It doesnt say USG cant
>>simply give assets to a private corp, only that it cant *create* the
>>corp to give them to. Conflict? What conflict?

>Doesn't that take Congressional approval?

It's not quite an issue of Congressional approval.

The USG can't simply give assets to a private corp. And it can't create
the corporation to give the assets to. 

The law passed by Congress in 1945 was passed to make such corporations
accountable to Congress for their operations...

There are laws regarding what the U.S. Dept of Commerce is doing
that seems to forbid what they are doing. And it is an issue
for Congress to examine and figure out what to do about it all.

So it is strange that in the hearing at the House of Representatives
Committee on Science, subcommittee on Basic Research a Congressman
just asked Becky Burr if she needed legislation. 

The history of the law/s involving this is that the Executive Branch
of the U.S. government was constantly trying to create quasi-government
corporations with little accountability. The corporations had 
little congressional or executive branch supervision and few fiscal
controls, and other problems.

The Congress recognized the need to establish "over-all public control"
over what was happening.

So it seems that the effort to create so called "private corporations"
like ICANN is a common practice of the U.S. Executive as a way
to go around the obligations of the law and the constitution and 
that this problem has been recognized and dealt with in the past.

I found the GAO opinion in the FCC Schools and Libraries Corporation
issue and it seems to shed quite a bit of light on how in fact
ICANN is a U.S. government created corporation and is in violation
of laws forbidding the U.S. Executive to create such corporations
as the U.S. Dept of Commerce has created ICANN.

The GAO opinion is B-278820.

Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


 Netizens: On the History and Impact
   of Usenet and the Internet
  http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 

Re: Pre-payment for registration [dnso.discuss] Re: [discuss] RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com

[Jeff Williams]

Steinar and all,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> > >The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
> > >but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
> > >It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
> > >not a level field for competition.
> >
> > More like this should not be an issue imposed by the registry or
> > ICANN, but a decision each registrar should make.  The registry should
> > not penalize or charge registrars for cancellations provided they do
> > not excessively exceed the normal averages for non-pay cancellations.
> >
> > Lets face it, the registry has EXTREMELY little cost involved for
> > inserting and then removing that entry (I'd venture to say none at
> > all).
>
> The cost may be small, but it is not zero. I find it perfectly reasonable
> that a registry should charge *some* fee for a domain registration, even
> if that registration is later cancelled. Having zero cost encourages
> rampant domain name speculation.

Having pre-payment or non-prepayment for the registration does not
in any way imply not cost.  Therefore pre-payment does little if anything
to curtail name speculation or "cybersquating".

> Having a small fee (not the cost of a
> full registration) will make speculation possible, but it won't be free.
> Compare with the stock markets - speculation in the stock markets is not
> free.

  I speculate on the stock market almost every week and I do it with my
brokers money much of the time, not my own.  They get paid an additional
fee for me to do this.  It is commonly called, margin.  Or in other parlance's
"Buying stock on the lay away plan".

>
>
> > Let the registrars decide what is the best model for them and
> > their target markets.  The registrar that sets up a no prepay secure
> > email interface for ISPs to funnel new registrations through will see
> > an influx of millions of dollars of registrations from the ISPs that
> > are tired of dealing with NSI, and are awaiting a registrar that will
> > meet their needs.
>
> If we're talking about TLDs other than just COM this may also depend on
> the policy of the TLD in question. A TLD may have a policy which says
> for instance that a domain name cannot be *reserved* - that domains are
> only for those who pay for the domains and have real name servers.

What of those that purchase a domain that has some other organization host
that domain?  Are they than not allowed to purchase a domain name under
your suggestion?

>
>
> A domain name registration and a later cancellation of the same is for
> all practical purposes equivalent to a temporary reservation of the
> domain name - it will block others from registering the same domain.

  This is nonsense.  First come first serve should be the rule, as it has
been.  It would be a prudent idea to limit the total number of domains
to a set low single digit, like 5, for instance.  For the ICANN Interim Board
to impose their "Accreditation Agreement" on potential registrars is in
and of itself imposing a business model of sorts on those Registrars.
THAT is not free and unfettered competition by definition...

>
> -snip-
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---
> You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
> http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
> This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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

Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: [discuss] RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect

[Jeff Williams]

William and all,

  Unfortunately one cannot place all the responsibility on Register.com for
their imposing pre-payment of registering a domain name, as they
were required to sign the "Accreditation Agreement" with ICANN in order
to become a ICANN registrar.  This responsibility lies with the ICANN
Interim Board alone...

William X. Walsh wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:34:30 +0200 , Roberto Gaetano
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hi.
> >
> >Richard Sexton wrote:
> >   >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
> >> >prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
> >> >prospective registrars.
> >>
> >> Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] advocating no prepayment???
> >>
> >The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
> >but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
> >It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
> >not a level field for competition.
>
> More like this should not be an issue imposed by the registry or
> ICANN, but a decision each registrar should make.  The registry should
> not penalize or charge registrars for cancellations provided they do
> not excessively exceed the normal averages for non-pay cancellations.
>
> Lets face it, the registry has EXTREMELY little cost involved for
> inserting and then removing that entry (I'd venture to say none at
> all).  Let the registrars decide what is the best model for them and
> their target markets.  The registrar that sets up a no prepay secure
> email interface for ISPs to funnel new registrations through will see
> an influx of millions of dollars of registrations from the ISPs that
> are tired of dealing with NSI, and are awaiting a registrar that will
> meet their needs.
>
> CORE?  Is anyone listening?  Fight the prepay requirement, and the
> business could be yours.  (I'm not asking register.com, they were
> already asked, and they obviously failed to do so).
>
> --
> William X. Walsh
> General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fax:(209) 671-7934
>
> The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
> to every time you have something to whimper about.
>
> ---
> You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
> http://lists.association.org/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=dnso.discuss
> This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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

Re: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect

[Jeff Williams]

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Richard Sexton wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
> > >prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
> > >prospective registrars.
> >
> > Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] advocating no prepayment???
> >
> The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
> but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
> It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
> not a level field for competition.

  Completely agreed Roberto.  And as such the Test bed registrars
under the arcane and non-competition based "Accreditation Policy"
demonstrates this very clearly  And it does so in many other
ways other than just the questionably portion of that "Accreditation
Policy" of pre-payment.  Time will also show this as well.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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

[IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect

[William X. Walsh]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 07:24:04 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>How did you figure that NSI initiated the prepayment
>requirement?  Take a look at ICANN's accreditation
>guidelines.
>

>From what I heard off the record, it was done at the initiation of
NSI.

But putting that aside, would NSI then take a position to advocate a
modification of this requirement to eliminate this competitive
disadvantage their registrars are under?



--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fax:(209) 671-7934

The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.

Re: [IFWP] Re: Register.com as Testbed & T&C's (Long)

[Jeff Williams]

Richard,

  Yes, it really doesn't have a Whois!  Typical of a ICANN selected
Registrar is suppose.  We shall see on the next one...

  From where I sit, Register.com appears like a scam!
To call this registrar (Register.com) competition in registering
domains in .com, .net, .org is a rather large "leap of faith" so
to speak...

Richard J. Sexton wrote:

> Ever do a whois on register.com ?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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

Re: [IFWP] Re: "I represent the little guy" -- Esther Dyson as hypocrite

[Jeff Williams]

Kerry and all,

  Although your questions are very well posed and as such are deserved
of an answer, completely and unequivocally, it is not likely that you shall
receive any answers either directly or indirectly from Esther or any
other member of the ICANN Interim Board.  This is simply because, as
you say you are considered "One of the little guys".

Kerry Miller wrote:

> Esther,
> >  I make trade-offs, as we all (most of  us) do.
>
> Yesterday, Ronda mentioned the 3/98 HR committee hearing.
> Supposing the points made there to be still relevant to ICANNs
> mandate and methodology, Ive borrowed a few quotes from the
> transcript  (at
> http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy090140.000/hs
> y090140_0.htm ) and have interpolated 8 questions for you.
>
> Charles Pickering says,
>
> [W]e need to keep in mind that our goal is not simply to transfer
> the DNS to the private system just to get it out of the hands of the
> U.S. Government. For years the U.S. Government, through the
> National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research
> Projects Agency, has been an excellent steward of the Internet.
> The American taxpayer has put quite a bit of money behind this
> project, and we have to ensure that the investment is not harmed
> during this transition.
>
> Lastly, we need to remember that the most important people, in
> terms of the Internet, are the actual end-users. That is the Internet
> user at his or her desk in Houston or Los Angeles or Jackson,
> Mississippi, home of the largest Internet provider today. I think all
> of us agree that our decisions on this topic must be made with the
> best interests of the individual Internet user in mind...
>
> [Q 1. If we suppose his "actual end-users" are at least some of
> your "little guys," can you say with whom you are compromising
> their "most important" interests, and why those compromises are
> necessary?]
>
> =
> Robert Kahn says,
>
> In my view, the Internet is not really in any crisis. It's not in danger
> of any immediate failure and, basically, any tact on our part to try
> and make some premature decisions seems to me is ill-founded.
> We really do have the time to consider these issues.
>
> [Q. 2. Can you tell us how the timetable was set for the various
> decision which the interim board has made (particularly in the light
> of point #5 of ICANNs FAQ, "... it seems desirable to set artificial
> deadlines to encourage early action on the formation of the
> constituencies") and how these help the little guy? ]
>
> ... A critical part of this is to systematically structure a process by
> which we can get the use from as many of the relevant parties as
> possible, not just using mechanisms like e-mail for comment, but I
> would think we should get the international community and as
> many of those who have chosen to weigh-in—who have chosen not
> to weigh-in yet—as we can and to do it with more deliberate
> interactions between the parties. I think this will actually help
> determine a long-term, stable solution of Internet governance.
> [...]
> *In addition* to the overall goal of stability in the Internet, other
> specific goals should be to ensure integrity in the management of
> the Internet addresses, the numbers; openness in the standards
> process; and, competition in services so the Internet can continue
> to evolve and thrive.
>
> [Q. 3-5. Can you say what you have done on the board to get
> "those who have not chosen to weigh in" to do so? (How many
> attendees at your international meetings did *not have e-mail
> access?) Can you say why ICANNs comment boards are not even
> e-mail lists, but are accessible only by Web browser, even though
> listserver software is one of the most fully developed internet
> applications available to the "actual end-user"? What have you
> done to keep the *additional* points from overriding the "critical
> part"?]
>
> =
> Dave Farber says,
>
> Any foundation for governance of the Internet must support
> fundamental human rights, a free expression, free association, due
> process, and nondiscriminatory administration. What may not be
> obvious at first glance, the management of the domain naming
> system impacts greatly on these basic human rights. It's through
> network addresses and domain names that organizations place
> their speech on the Internet. And it's through these addresses that
> others can locate this speech. It is easy for those responsible for
> administrating basic Internet functions to loose sight of this and to
> act in ways that unnecessarily burden the ability to exercise free
> speech. Already censorship has appeared in arbitrary and uneven
> manners on the network, and it is damaging our rights to speak.
> [...]
>
> Sitting on the net and watching, over the last 6 months, this debate
> take place, reminds me of a set of people launching a nuclear
> missiles at each other via e-mail. There's been, I think, inadequate
> opportunity for people to actually

Re: [discuss] RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect

[sthaug]

> >The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
> >but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
> >It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
> >not a level field for competition.
> 
> More like this should not be an issue imposed by the registry or
> ICANN, but a decision each registrar should make.  The registry should
> not penalize or charge registrars for cancellations provided they do
> not excessively exceed the normal averages for non-pay cancellations.
> 
> Lets face it, the registry has EXTREMELY little cost involved for
> inserting and then removing that entry (I'd venture to say none at
> all).

The cost may be small, but it is not zero. I find it perfectly reasonable
that a registry should charge *some* fee for a domain registration, even
if that registration is later cancelled. Having zero cost encourages
rampant domain name speculation. Having a small fee (not the cost of a
full registration) will make speculation possible, but it won't be free.
Compare with the stock markets - speculation in the stock markets is not
free.

> Let the registrars decide what is the best model for them and
> their target markets.  The registrar that sets up a no prepay secure
> email interface for ISPs to funnel new registrations through will see
> an influx of millions of dollars of registrations from the ISPs that
> are tired of dealing with NSI, and are awaiting a registrar that will
> meet their needs.

If we're talking about TLDs other than just COM this may also depend on
the policy of the TLD in question. A TLD may have a policy which says
for instance that a domain name cannot be *reserved* - that domains are
only for those who pay for the domains and have real name servers.

A domain name registration and a later cancellation of the same is for
all practical purposes equivalent to a temporary reservation of the
domain name - it will block others from registering the same domain.
To avoid speculation in such reservations, a fee seems reasonable, even
if the registration is later cancelled.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] RE: [IFWP] Re: Register.com and the Testbed charges effect

[William X. Walsh]

On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 09:34:30 +0200 , Roberto Gaetano
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Hi.
>
>Richard Sexton wrote:
>   >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >I'd say this is a pretty clear determination of the effects NSI's
>> >prepayment requirement is going to have on its new and future
>> >prospective registrars.
>> 
>> Where were you 6 months ago when it seemed like I was the only one on
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] advocating no prepayment???
>> 
>The big issue, as I see it, is not "prepayment yes" vs.  "prepayment no",
>but "prepayment yes for some and no for others".
>It is self-evident (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this situation is
>not a level field for competition.

More like this should not be an issue imposed by the registry or
ICANN, but a decision each registrar should make.  The registry should
not penalize or charge registrars for cancellations provided they do
not excessively exceed the normal averages for non-pay cancellations.

Lets face it, the registry has EXTREMELY little cost involved for
inserting and then removing that entry (I'd venture to say none at
all).  Let the registrars decide what is the best model for them and
their target markets.  The registrar that sets up a no prepay secure
email interface for ISPs to funnel new registrations through will see
an influx of millions of dollars of registrations from the ISPs that
are tired of dealing with NSI, and are awaiting a registrar that will
meet their needs.

CORE?  Is anyone listening?  Fight the prepay requirement, and the
business could be yours.  (I'm not asking register.com, they were
already asked, and they obviously failed to do so).



--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fax:(209) 671-7934

The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.