Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges (fwd)

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

This is one of the best thought out comments on ICANN I have come across
since ICANN was first announced. We need more of this kind of clearheaded
approach to the situation. Perhaps John could be convinced to contribute
something to the http://www.icannwatch.org website?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:53:23 -0600
From: "John M. Brown" <jmbrown@ihighway.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ICANN Draws Fire Over Proposed Charges


Couple of points:

1. This fits the NANOG AUP and Charter HOW???  And claiming that 
   since root servers are spoken about is lame. I am only responding because
   I am getting tired of the BS, grand standing and other basic body part
   waving that is going on.  There is REAL WORK that needs to be done.

2. Everyone seems to be in a tizzy about ICANN charging a $1 per domain
   name.  WHY?  Lets look at a couple of things shall we?

   A.  NSI, of and thru the United States Gov, charges $35 per domain per
       year.  They say this is to recover the cost of doing business
       and the USG didn't want to pay for the services any more.  Ok
       so it costs $35 bucks.  Hmm
    
       Then why did NSI recently state to the test bed registrar's that 
       it COSTS NSI $9 per domain per year.?  Seems a lot LESS than $35
       they have been enjoying.

       So if you are a registrar you get to pay NSI the registery $9 per
       domain.  Do you think NSI is doing that at a loss??  I don't.

	What is the real cost to register a domain ??  Or did NSI just
        get rich off of all of us?

3.	Para 3 of that article (I don't call it news) states that NSI
        is stating ICANN hasn't stuck to its non-profit status.  Partially
        because it is holding meetings in "remote locales, including
        Berlin, Singapore, and Santiago".   

	I thought ICANN was supposed to be a GLOBAL deal.  Otherwords 
        it would be smart of them to hold meetings in DIFFERENT parts of the
        world, so as to get the input from local people of that region.

        To think that all such meetings should be held in the US or even
        a US  / Euro venue, is well very Anglo / European.  

4.      I really like Brian O' Shaughnessy's statement in Para 4.
 
        " Its not about the common Internet folk anymore, its about the
        guys in the $1,200 Armani suits who can afford to fly to Santiago"

        Hello, Mr. O' Shaughnessy:  

        Well Sir, I don't have any Armani suits, from what I saw at Singapore
        Chuck Gomes, Don Telage, and the other NSI people where the best 
        "Shirt and Tie" dressed people at the ICANN meeting, at least in 
        the public side.  There certainly where a lot of jeans, polo shirts
        and such. I even think Joe Simms wasn't in a tie, and HE can afford
        that Armani suit! :)  Hey, M. Sandow wasn't in a Armani Suit, or
        was that not in the budget????


        Oh, by the way Mr. O'Shaughnessy:  I run a SMALL (you know little guy)
        ISP in New Mexico and I thought it was important to hear and witness
        what ICANN had to say and what it was doing.  

        Mr. O' Shaughnessy it cost me a significant amount of money to attend
        and I attended because I wanted to make sure that those of us 
        little guy ISP's had someone looking at the process and not just the
        Net.Kooks.  

        
In closing I have this to say:  I have watched this whole process and can 
sum up most of the public mail as follows:

1. FUD, created NSI or people they have a relationship with

2. Debate on whether certain people really exist or not in Dallas area

3. Name calling between the kook camps

What I haven't seen is real serious respectable people stepping forward and
stating objective, clearly formed, well thought out statements for or
against this entire project.

ICANN may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but on the other hand
do we all want the USG / DOC  / NSI to control OUR INTERNET. Nope I didn't
think so.  

ICANN has many different things to deal with and funding the org is on of the
more critical and important things.  I'd rather have ICANN funded by a 
$1 per domain or similar charge, than by having corporate sponsors.


Don't bother to reply to this message unless you do the following:

1.  Take if off the list, otherwords reply PRIVATELY

2.  Have well thought out statements and SOLUTIONS that will work technically
    , operationally, and globally 

3.  Are not a kook.  


On Mon, Jul 05, 1999 at 10:26:01AM -0700, Henry R. Linneweh wrote:
> 
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990705S0003
> 
> I hope that the root servers are not turned over to this ICANN
> group. I believe this to be a disaster in waiting and will not remedy
> the problem as it exists.
> 
> Henry
> 
>