Re: Conflict resolution?

[chris@hal.iodesign.com (Christopher Ambler)]

>I fail to see why the Internet community should grant you a monopoly
>simply because you have based a business plan on that monopoly status.

Initially, I would say because IANA accepted applications for this,
we applied along with a business plan, and were told by IANA that we
could go operational pending procedure finalization. But I've said
this before, haven't I?

>In the context of the creation of iTLDs and the deliberations of the
>IAHC, I figure it is irrelevant whether or not the IANA "accepted an
>application pending completion of procedure".  At the time you
>purportedly submitted an application, the only agreed upon mechanisms
>for new domain allocation were those documented in RFC 1591.  Granting
>your application some sort of special status because you went to
>Marina Del Rey and met with IANA personnel, while the vast majority of
>the Internet community labored under the assumption that RFC 1591 was
>still in effect is ludicrous.

Of course it is not. It's very simple - IANA was in charge, IANA had
the ability to do this, and IANA did this. When asked how I would go
about registering an iTLD, IANA told me, point blank, "apply to us,
and we'll go from there."

Any assumption by the Internet community is not my problem. Rather than
assume, I asked, and did as I was told at the time. What else would you
have had me do?

>Given you view the NSI exclusive use of domains as an "unfair trade
>advantage", your solution to the problem is to give yourself exclusive
>use of another domain?  It would seem a better solution would be to
>disallow exclusive use.

No, I would grant MANY companies exclusive use of MANY iTLDs, and let
the market decide the issue based on this competition.

>Under conventions established via RFC 1591, the IANA can accept
>applications for TLDs and decide to implement them or not.  However,
>as RFC 1591 states, it would be extremely unlikely that new TLDs would
>be allocated.  Thus, you can probably assume your .WEB application
>would be rejected.

This might have been a good ASSUMPTION at the time, but, as I've said,
rather than assume I asked. As it turns out, my application was not only
accepted, but was acknowledged as first and only, given permission to
begin operations, and payment accepted. Again, what would you have had me
do?

>You are arguing the solution to a monopoly is the creation of another
>monopoly and that because you tried either deliberately or in
>ignorance to bypass RFC 1591 procedures that you should be given the
>monopolistic rights to .WEB.  Obviously, I do not see these as valid
>arguments.

I am arguing that MANY registries should have control of exclusive iTLDs
in order to open the market to reasonably expected competition. Had IANA
even HINTED that shared domains were a possibility at the time, things
might have been different. I was not, and I am not in ingnorance of 1591,
and I did not try to bypass it at all. Once more, I asked what to do, was
told what to do, and did it. Why is this so hard to understand?

>Can you explain why you feel you cannot derive commercial viability
>for your domain name registration service by simply providing value at
>a reasonable cost in a free market instead of relying on monopolistic
>status?

Yes, but that's part of our business and marketing plan that I'd rather
not discuss. I'm sure you understand that.

--
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.