Re: [names] New gTLDs

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 07:28 PM 9/23/99 , Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
>This list is for discussion of the issues, rather than attacks on fellow listmembers' motives and agendas--however justifiably attackable one may deem them.  This isn't the first email to cross that line in my view among the participants here, but it's the most recent.  Until the list moderating baton is passed to the student coordinator(s) who volunteered to inherit it, I ask all participants to refrain from accusing others of ill motives.
>
>Thanks.


Sorry,

For the benefit of the students, let me
try this once again . . .

This one topic is probably the most important,
and most divisive, in the entire DNS debate.
It is a question of business models, and it 
speaks to the very essence of what this fight 
is about -- control.

Historically, the Internet has experienced
phenomenal growth as a vehicle for *private*
resources to be interconnected, for the 
benefit of all.  

This system was first challenged with a 
proposal known as the gTLD-MoU, the immediate
predecessor to ICANN.  The gTLD-MoU would have
declared the name space a "public resource",
which in turn, would change all names from
privately controlled, to publicly managed.

This *single* issue was hotly contested 
during the MoU days.  It was a *major* reason
that the U.S. Government *had* to intervene
into the DNS Wars.  

And after thousands of pages of suggestions,
and comments, and meetings, etc., etc., etc.,
the U.S. Government decided that there was 
*NO* consensus on this issue.  

To address this lack of consensus, the U.S. 
Government eventually proposed the White Paper, 
which was to use a consensus based, bottom-up 
process to answer this question.

Yet, it appears that Mike has already made
his decision.  And once again, it is based
upon some nebulous declaration of community
consensus.

So, in closing, I challenge Mike to document
his claims that the question of Business models
has been decided, by documenting both public
comments, and the actual decision making 
process.

Until he does this, his claims remain nothing 
more than smoke and mirrors.

IMHO & FWIW!

Jay.


>At 06:30 PM 9/23/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>>At 04:19 PM 9/23/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
>> >Yes, it's true, the solution space for new gTLD's doesn't include
>> >any more grants of monopoly windfall profits.
>> >
>> >But that doesn't have anything to do with me or with ICANN.
>> >
>> >It's against the law.
>>
>>
>>Funny, that.
>>
>>I wonder why Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's
>>technology czar, proposed a solution that was
>>"against the law" (aka The Green Paper)!
>>
>>Let's face it Mike, no amount of "spin" will
>>change the facts -- you have a pre-ordained
>>agenda, you have no interest in living up to
>>the lofty goals of the White Paper, and your
>>organization is a sham.
>>
>>Jay.
>>
>>
>> >The government essentially admitted it made a mistake, or rather
>> >the government admitted that good intentions had gone awry in
>> >the case of its cooperative agreement with NSI, when it placed
>> >so much emphasis on "robust competition" as a major DNS
>> >goal in the white paper, and when it negotiated the new competition
>> >provisions of Amendment 11 with NSI in the summer of 1998.
>> >
>> >If NSI had achieved its market dominance on any other basis than
>> >that of a government contractor, it would have had serious antitrust
>> >problems a long time ago.
>> >
>> >The governmental may be slow, and it may be methodical, but it
>> >doesn't usually make the same mistake twice.
>> >
>> >I applaud the Nesson proposal.  We need creative new ideas for
>> >dealing with a very complex subject, and especially ones that
>> >also meet the goals for the DNS set out in the White Paper.
>> >
>> >- Mike