Fwd: Re: [names] New gTLDs

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 11:21 AM 9/26/99 , someone wrote:
>Dear Jay,
>
>Quite sorry to read the below message. Is it possible to put together a
>brief history of your involvement, with some additional detail on the cited
>Harvard Law class incident. I'm trying to educate my congress member on the
>issue and I'd like to send it to him.


Here is the exchange on the Harvard Law
class list that resulted in Iperdome's 
announcement on Friday.

Note that Mike Roberts, president of ICANN, 
told some reporters back in January that 
Iperdome's business model was not an option 
under ICANN.  (If this were true, it would 
be a serious violation of the ICANN by-laws, 
and show a total disregard for the intent 
of the White Paper).

When challenged, Mike Roberts admitted that
it was true, and replied that the business 
model issue had been decided by the U.S. 
Government, and that Iperdome's position 
was illegal anyway.

FWIW, those reasons were countered below 
with quotes from the U.S. Government, and an
analysis from the Federal Trade Commission.

No further comments from Mike have been
received.

Jay.


[Apologies for the heated tone]

 >Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:36:34 -0400
 >To: Becky Burr <bburr@ntia.doc.gov>,
 >         "eric.link@mail.house.gov" <eric.link@mail.house.gov>,
 >         paul.scolese@mail.house.gov, mark.harrington@mail.house.gov,
 >         james.tierney@usdoj.gov, Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>,
 >         Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>, comments@icann.org
 >From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
 >Subject: Re: [names] New gTLDs
 >Cc: names@spike.fibertron.com
 >
 >
 >At 12:19 PM 9/24/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
 > >At 10:37 AM 9/24/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
 > > >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 . . .
 > > >
 > >
 > >Let's see if I've got this right.  Jay objected to my 
 > >saying to a reporter last January that there weren't
 > >going to be any more monopoly grants of gTLD's.
 > >For the record, I repeated my prior assertion and 
 > >said that ICANN and the government saw the solution
 > >space for gTLD's as requiring some formula for robust
 > >competition.
 > >
 > >Jay responds by saying he's going out of business and
 > >that the problem is one of business models and control.
 > >
 > > > 
 > > >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.
 > > > 
 > >
 > >Then Jay goes on to say that the problem is that
 > >I personally have made such a decision and that
 > >I claimed consensus for it - which no where appears
 > >in my note from yesterday - which indeed says that
 > >the assertion is based on the model for ICANN
 > >contained in the white paper and in the restrictions
 > >on corporate behavior contained in the antitrust 
 > >laws
 > >
 > > >
 > > >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.
 > > >
 > >
 > >If Jay thinks that the language of the white paper
 > >and the language of the antitrust laws is smoke and 
 > >mirrors, he's certainly entitled to that view, but 
 > >I doubt it is widely shared.
 > >
 >
 >More smoke and mirrors!
 >
 >Here's the relevant section from the U.S. Government's
 >Green Paper, the pre-cursor to the White Paper:
 >
 >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm
 >
 >      There appears to be strong consensus that, at least at this time,
 >domain name
 >registration--the registrar function--should be competitive. There is
 >disagreement, however, over the wisdom of promoting competition at the
 >registry level.
 >      Some have made a strong case for establishing a market-driven
 >registry system. Competition among registries would allow registrants
 >to choose among TLDs rather than face a single option. Competing TLDs
 >would seek to heighten their efficiency, lower their prices, and
 >provide additional value-added services. Investments in registries
 >could be recouped through branding and marketing. The efficiency,
 >convenience, and service levels associated with the assignment of names
 >could ultimately differ from one TLD registry to another. Without these
 >types of market pressures, they argue, registries will have very little
 >incentive to innovate.
 >      Others feel strongly, however, that if multiple registries are to
 >exist, they should be undertaken on a not-for-profit basis. They argue
 >that lack of portability among registries (that is, the fact that users
 >cannot change registries without adjusting at least part of their
 >domain name string) could create lock-in problems and harm consumers.
 >For example, a registry could induce users to register in a top-level
 >domain by charging very low prices initially and then raise prices
 >dramatically, knowing that name holders will be reluctant to risk
 >established business by moving to a different top-level domain.
 >      We concede that switching costs and lock-in could produce the
 >scenario described above. On the other hand, we believe that market
 >mechanisms may well discourage this type of behavior. On balance, we
 >believe that consumers will benefit from competition among market
 >oriented registries, and we thus support limited experimentation with
 >competing registries during the transition to private sector
 >administration of the domain name system.
 >
 >
 >And here is a detailed discussion of the merit,
 >AND LEGALITY, for competitive registries by the
 >Federal Trade Commission.  I respectfully suggest 
 >that the FTC has quite a bit more experience in 
 >these matters than the unelected board and 
 >president of ICANN!
 >
 >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/scanned/FTC.htm
 >
 >
 > >In notes to this list, in statements elsewhere, and in
 > >actions taken at meetings, ICANN has made it abundantly
 > >clear that the Board considers the future of the gTLD
 > >namespace to be an important question on which community
 > >views will be carefully solicited and thoughtfully
 > >considered before any policy actions are proposed. If
 > >Jay is interested in being part of the solution to this
 > >complex set of issues, he has plenty of opportunity to 
 > >participate in the process.
 >
 >
 >Sure, Jay, your invited to comment.
 >
 >And as long as you agree with *us*, 
 >we'll incorporate your comments into 
 >*our* "consensus" document ;-)
 >
 >Jay.
 >
 >
 > >
 > >- Mike
 > >
 > > > 
 > > > 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
 > > >