Re: [ICANN-EU] New gTLD application procedure vs NSI network gouvernance

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Alf,
Thank you for your comment and for your responses to my questions.
I wish you good luck because of your point about ".gnu", but I am
afraid you miss the point about what ICANN is/should be. Or may be
I missread you or you think advisable to get in to pay a tribute as I
am resquested for TLDs :-).

Let go to your points which are interesting:

At 00:40 24/08/00, you wrote:
>Hi,
>Christoph wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Alf Hansen wrote:
> > > You asked a question to the candidates, and I will put my head on the
> > > block as the first one...
> > first, nice to see you here. You are the first of the NomCom candidates
> > here.
>Thanks. This seems to be a civilized place to be.
> > > I leave it to others to judge how many US $ they will invest in a new
> > > TLD. It is not clear to me (either) how the investors will get their
> > > money back.
> > I'll give an example.
> > The evaluation of Richard Stallmann's and the FSF's suggestion for
> > ".gnu" should cost US $10:
> > - $5 for a secretary to write a letter saying effectively 'nice to hear
> >   from you. The idea is sound, the Directors will vote on it'.
> > - $5 to send that via certified snail mail.
> > That's it. US $10.
> > So, what are the other US$49,990 needed for in this case ? Everyone
> > knows
> > these folks can run a domain.
>
>It is not as simple as that. Cut from
>http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-tld-application-instructions-15aug00.htm :
>"The policy calls for submission of proposals to sponsor or operate new
>TLDs by interested persons and organizations. After public comment,
>these proposals will be evaluated and a limited number of proposals will
>be selected for negotiations toward agreements between ICANN and the TLD
>sponsors and operators. The current goal is to complete negotiations by
>31 December 2000."
>So, I think I can understand that there is a substantial cost in
>handling this also for ICANN.
>One can always discuss if the level is correct, but I will not
>contribute to such a discussion at this point in time.
>I would rather try to understand what those who decide to invest will
>get back for the investment, and how we (the At-Large, individuals) can
>contribute to a fair process, also for us.

I am demanded $100.000 to give away two concepts without any IP
protection, with the thread to be removed their management anytime
an unkown decision maker on unknown grounds will decide it and to
see them used by larger than me to kill my subsequent business,
since I am first a user with common-to-be needs. I do not see any
way to make a for sure a single penny in this endeavor.

For this I must also spend a lot of time and a lot of money more.

The result is that I am ready to propose unlimited domain names
numbers at $ 2500 per year, free for non profite and caritatives.
The proposition will be most probably taken over by an operator
in the meanwhile with the blessing of NSI who will sell it to you
$20 a piece after discount.

This can only lead to one thing: I will start operations out of the
a-root or as ULD and spend my money in blocking the ICANN
process to lock competition out through legal actions with others
and in making some joint advrtizing through the press to launch
my services.

Is this realy that you want? I am not sure it is common interest...

>Have you read http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-criteria-15aug00.htm ? After
>a quick read I think it is quite good, and the criteria seem to be
>promoting a process where the applicants and ICANN together via
>negotiations can develop  how new gTLDs can be established.

Just imagine yourself as the ".gnu" applicant. Would you spend
time reading it, filling it with two lawyers, detailing your operations
to competition through ICANN (again no NDA, no protection, to
the contrary you sign you abandon any IP on your ideas, know
how, etc..)

>Using the market mechanism in this case can be a way to determine the
>"best" ideas for the developments of the new TLDs. However, I am not
>sure if this mechanism alone is "best" for the users/consumers. If we
>trust that ICANN "takes care of that in the negoitiations", we can
>relax. But can we?

What do you qualify as "best" when the best will be the one which
should result in the maximum number of duplicate registrations at the
highest acceptable rate. Shop, Banc, Sex ?

>With a strong representation from At-Large in the ICANN Board, I think
>we can.

If he has a string commitment at representing the interest of the
millions of users, not those of the 18 Directors, the Staff and the
Lawyers. I have nothing against people trying to make a good job
and making money at it. But I am not convinced that the ICANN
does a good job there. I am even sure it does a so poor job that
one way or another it will not survive these two selections
processes (new Directors and new TLDs). Hence my concern
because this will delay everyone.

Best regards.
Jefsey Morfin