Re: Specific Questions

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

Chris,

  Ok, read below your comments/questions please.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> Okay, in an attempt to make another pass at my draft towards consensus,
> I have the following questions. I would like everyone who has an
> opinion to forward me the answers (Cc to the list is your option).
> 
> As an aside, to the gentleman who pointed out that what I'm doing
> is more "compromise" than "consensus," I would like to take this
> opportunity to say thank you - that's the nicest thing anyone has
> said to me this week.
> 
> 1. Application Fee - How Much and why? Refundable if not selected for
>   any reason?

  I would say that $2000 should be sufficient.  If not selected, the
fund should be refundable minus a minimal application fee for forms
and review costs plus intrest on the adjusted ballence for the period
the funds are held.  Reason, just good business and fairness to the 
applicants.  
> 
> 2. Fee for credit check - Fair?

  I think that  acredit check is questionable all together.  In lew of
the current known duplicate credit records currently on many databases
such as TRW's and others, this is highly questionable as to it's
accuracy.
I think that an insurance bond is a better idea.
> 
> 3. Registration procedure. n-day wait, or n-day publishing or both?
>   Define n (valid answers are 0 to 365 for n)

  30 day wait.
> 
> 4. Lottery or Objective Criteria?

  Lottery is fine as long as the fee is not exorbanant.  ANd the lottery
is 
truely a random selection.
> 
> 5. gTLDs selected by IAHC, CORE, or the registries (or some combination
>   thereof?)

  All three should play a part in this process wioth equal status in the
selection process by simple majority vote.
> 
> 6. Shared only, exclusive only, shared on choice of registry, or
>   shared when feasable, exclusive until then?

  Choinc of the registry with notification to IAHC and CORE and all
other
registries.  15 day notice should be adaquste if going from exclusive to
shared.  Exclutivity should be opitional.
> 
> 7. Finally, anything MISSING from the draft?

I don't have any other points of significant importance that what you
have
covered here.
> 
> If there is no interest in what I'm trying to accomplish, then I shall
> submit my draft to the IAHC as my comments on the 19Dec document and
> leave it at that. Anyone who wishes to sign on as supporting it can
> lend a voice.
> 
> On a personal note, anyone who knows me knows that I much prefer to
> reach agreements where everyone is happy. It's no secret that my
> company intends to run a registry (be a registrar, what have you), and
> that I'm biased in that respect. What I'm trying to do here is put
> that aside and promote a solution. Whether the IAHC listens at that
> point or not is the question, but at least they cannot claim that this
> discussion list degenerated into anarchy, which is why they just went
> ahead and decided on their own.

  Though we don't often agree, I recognize that you seem truely to be
attempting to gain a consensus form the committee here.  I to have 
attempted to do the same.  And I hope that all here recognize your 
efforts
> 
> I swear, I will go down trying on this one before I give up and turn
> the whole thing over to others in my company. I do NOT look forward to
> what this will become at that point.

  Sounds as though you have other internal concerns as well.

Regards,

> 
> --
> 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