Re: Registries and iTLDs

[Christopher Ambler <chris@iodesign.com>]

Don, I'm sure you expect a lot of response from this one :-)

> As a result of that effort, I do not think we (the IAHC) should do
> anything to allow anyone, or any company, to "get rich."

I think the IAHC should do nothing to allow anyone to get rich. I also
think that the IAHC should do nothing to prevent anyone from getting rich.
If running a registry makes someone rich, then it can make anyone who
runs a registry rich. Let the situation play itself out.

> iTLDs should not be a vehicle for any entity to profit
> excessively.  They should be nothing more than what they are: an
> international resource that assist in the mechanisms to achieve
> uniqueness in domain names.

Absolutely. And if they make someone rich, then so be it. There are many
resources that fit into the same kind of catagory that make people rich.
To attempt to deliberately work the procedure such that it has a planned
goal to curtail profit is wrong. Very wrong.

> That said, it begs that there should be only _shared iTLDs_, probably
> not too many (in the 100s at tops maybe); there should be _multiple
> registries_, and they should be scattered around the globe; they
> should be considered as a _public service_ with enough income to
> provide the required service and enough profit to provide the incentive
> to function.

I cannot disagree more. Not only with your reasoning, but with your
conclusion. You are mandating a scheme that discourages entrance into the
registry business, and denying companies the ability to select iTLDs that
they feel they can effectively market. Furthermore, you are mandating that
any registry that selects an iTLD that they feel they can market MUST SHARE
that iTLD with other registries; other registries that will, in effect, ride
on the coattails of any registry that cares to spend money to advertise
the iTLDs in question.

> It also says that iTLDs should not be emotionally charged and should
> be made as universal as possible  -  recognizing that we live in a world
> that has many languages; that they should be defined by a process
> that is ground-up  -  that is, not dictated, but arrived at through some
> process of gaining broad consensus.

Consensus by market, Don. Any company that can be a viable registry can
select an iTLD to market. In ANY language. Consensus is reached by market
acceptance. This is the basic principle of capitalism, which seems to be
working just fine, worldwide. To mandate sharing is to take a step backwards,
and even Russia has realized that such a state of affairs just doesn't work.

> I feel fairly certain that if we (the Internet community  -  which is
> growing
> to mean virtually everyone) don't agree to something along the above
> lines, governments and regulating agencies around the globe are going
> to take over the process and it will be a long time before any kind of
> order will emerge.

With this I can agree.

> But they will come to the conclusions I cited above.  They
> will not allow companies or people to grow fat (wealthy) from providing
> this kind of service.

With this I cannot agree. "They" have already let NSI do it, but regardless,
I cannot agree with your conclusion.

As everyone else, I await the official position on 19 December. And again,
regardless of our difference of opinion, I appreciate the work being done
and the schedule being kept.



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