Re: Thread 1: Sharing

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chris,

  Please read below your comments.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> Good points, Karl -
> 
> >> as soon as everyone agrees to share? An agreement between the new
> >> registrars is simple to execute. Then, as soon as NSI joins in, we all
> >> share. This, too, may be immediate - or it may be when the NSF agreement
> >> runs out.
> >
> >Whether they will CHOOSE to do so is not known.  What IS known is that we
> >have not seen ANY public commitment from them that they WON'T do this.
> >It may also be never.
> 
> It may. But if NSI pulls out all the stops to keep their monopoly,
> can anyone honestly say that the new registrars still must share?
> Let's set it up so that the new registrars can go head-to-head with
> NSI, while inviting them to share so we all have level ground. It's
> fair both ways.
> 
> >1)     FCFS recognition for EXISTING registries (again, ALL of them,
> >       IANA-recognized or not) in the order which they ACTUALLY went
> >       constructively online.
> 
> While I am naturally in favour of this, there has been some dissention.
> Can anyone give a reason why this is unfair? Please do say that what
> the current registries are doing is 'rogue' or 'unrecognizable,' since
> that's an opinion that is contested. Why, in objective terms, would
> it be unfair to allow those registries who have demonstrated a working
> system to be given recognition in the selection of registrars?
> 
> >2)     Punitive application fees.  These are an outrage.
> 
> The $20,000 fee seems to be used as a barrier to entry to insure that
> the applicant has financial means. What would you suggest in its
> place, Karl?

  Well, maybe Karl has not yet responded, bu I will here.  This $20k fee
is very PUNITIVE and unnecessary.  I would suggest $2k.
> 
> >3)     Punitive restrictions on free commerce and trade (ie: extreme
> >       limits on the number of gTLDs and registries).
> 
> This is being covered in another thread, would you comment there?
> 
> >There's lots more -- but this is a good start.

  Well, I think the Dec 19 perposal should be trashed.  Most of the 
major points have been disputed by several on this list.  It is time
to rethink.

Regards,

> 
> Thank you. I appreciate your participation very much.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com