RE: Registries and iTLDs

[Donald Heath <heath@linus.isoc.org>]

Chris

I have been using Microsoft Exchange for email and notice that it's
difficult to distinguish who wrote, at what time, etc.  I'll try to respond
to your points putting in enough info to try to make things clear wrt
who wrote what.

Chirs wrote:
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.

Don responded:
In my original note, I thought considerably about whether or not to add the
sentence (after the one above marked by >s), "The IAHC should not do
anything proactive to prevent that possibility either."  It isn't clear to me
yet, how to allow authorized registries to create their own iTLDs.  This,
of course, presupposes that the IAHC, somehow, facilitates, or otherwise
gets defined, a set of approved iTLDs which would be shared and would
fit the general principles of my note.  It also implies that some mechanism
for an authorized registry to develop and implement its own iTLDs would
exist.  It then follows that some additional mechanism must exist to
assure that a plethora of new "private label" iTLDs, surviving on the free
enterprise market forces, don't exceed some number that corrupts the
technical integrity of the Internet.

I have this notion that the IAHC must act in the best interests of the 
Internet.  WRT iTLDs it produces  -  and I think they should come through
some iterative process with wide consensus   -   and new registries it
authorizes (including the InterNIC, if that contract should come under the
ISOC purview), I believe as I stated in my original note.

I also believe that an authorized registry should have some freedom,
within the technical constraints of the Net, to establish its own iTLDs
and let the merits of their selection determine its success or failure. I
think this requires more thought, and that's why I left it out of my
original note.



> 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.

Chris wrote:
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.

Don responded:
Remember, I was referring to any iTLDs sanctioned by the IAHC.

> 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.

Chris wrote:
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.

Don responded:
My thoughts should be clear from what I have just written in response above.
I would just add, by way of disclaimer, that I view this entire process we are
currently engaged in, as an iterative one in which opinions and ideas 
evolve from meaningful discourse.  I am not above altering my thinking (not
principles) based on solid facts and better ideas.

> 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.

Chris wrote:
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.

Don responded:
Again, see above responses.

> 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.

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

Don responded:
Don't count on it!  Unless the IAHC can come to some mechanisms to
allow an authorized registry to do the "private label" iTLDs, and get wide
consensus, I suspect my original comment would be absolute.  This
means that the forces I cited would come into the picture because of
failure of the IAHC, or failure of the IAHC to get wide enough consensus.

Chris wrote:
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.

Don responded:
Thanks Chris; I know we all appreciate your comment!  



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