Re: Our consensus doesn't decide anything

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

Joe,

  Please read below your points.

Joe Kelsey wrote:
> 
> Jeff Williams writes:
>  > this list.  There seem to be four areas of serious contention. 1.) The
>  > amount of the registration fee. 2.) The lottery selection process.
>  > 3.) The 60 day waiting period. 4.) A totaly shared model.
> 
> 1. The registration fee is completely uncontriversial. The IAHC has
>    repeatedly said that the fee will be based on actual costs spread
>    over the inital registrars. What possible controversy could exist?

  From section 4.2 of the draft, and I quote,
  "1.Each application must be accompanied by a US$ 20,000 fee
[estimated]. 
    This fee will be refunded in the event an applicant is found to be
not 
    qualified or the applicant is not selected in the lottery process; 

   2.Each applicant will be responsible for payment of an appropriate
fee 
     for a report by an independent business and credit reporting
agency, 
     designated by IAHC, which will confirm the validity of information
     submitted by the applicant; this fee is non-refundable; "

  I appologize there are acctualy two fees.  The second is not very 
    discriptive as to whom are to be the independant business reporting
    agency's that the IAHC will desiginate.  Some are good and
reasonable
    and some are not.  That includes D&B (BAD). 
> 
> 2. Several extremely good proposals have been advanced. Anyone who feels
>    that some sort of change will not be forthcoming hasn't been
>    listening to the comments.

  Well, this remains to be seen, right?  I am hopefull however.  It
would
have been a very helpfull idea to put forth a "Update" to the Dec 19
draft prior to the final draft, as some suggested.
> 
> 3. The 60-day waiting period is probably dead unless the INTA has more
>    clout than I can see. There appears to be precedent for a 60-day or
>    less publication period, similar to DBA laws in many states.

  Agreed here.
> 
> 4. The shared model is the only way to go. The only people who doubt
>    this are greedy, short-sighted money grabbers like Palmer.

  Name calling does not strengthen nor support a shared model.  In that
there is yet to be a working shared model, and most likely to be some
legal problems with a shared model, it is unwise to be 100% shared
for ALL TLD's.  A compermise in this area has been suggested by 
several on this list.  Still conterfersy here.
> 
> Please let me know that you disagree with any of the above. If you
> don't, then where is the controversy?

  Well, I think I have covered that just above.  But please feel free
to review ALL of the archives, an see for yourself.
> 
> /Joe

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