Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: Don't waste your endorsement

[Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de>]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 01:19:54PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 10:01 7/09/00 +0000, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> >So a de jure solution has to be found. No requirement for new TLDs.

> For a non-lawyer, you put a lot of faith in a de jure solution. 

As a non-lawyer I noticed that every non-de-jure solution will fail due to
'evil' advocates. As a technican I usually do not try to apply an
impractical solution. Sorry, but this is a reason for candidating.

> If there was any chance that this would work, it would have been tried
> already. ICANN had the opportunity, but backed down on good advice and
> did a deal with NSI. Don't you mean political solution?

Me yesterday messages tried to show, that every new TLDs will run in the
same juristic problems and futhermore create new ones in the existing
structure. That's my reason to oppose new TLDs. They can not solve those
problemes by new contracts. Those new contracts will be ignored immediately.

> I hope you have not totally closed your mind on the more logical way to
> bring in competition.  

No, definitly not. Unfortunely I do not see how new TLDs can overcome
current (inter)national law.

> The de jure solution lies with ICANN: the standard contracts between TLD
> registries and their registrars and the Domain Name holders need to
> contain clauses that protect the DN holders against monopoly abuse.

*grin* Same contracts as with NSI? Reducing the WIPO influence by ignoring
laws? I worder why such a contract should possible with a new registry but
not with NSI, but I do not know the current contracts in detail.

> In other words: Industry regulation.

equals to lobby regulation. The more you can pay the more rights you will
collect. :-(

> Now why do you think the current DNSO Names Council might want to keep the
> DN holders out?

Because they are leaded by a strong industry cooperating with other large
lobby organisations.

>>>> I do not oppose the profits, I do oppose the creation of TLDs solely for
>>>> profit.
> 
> That leaves you open for the "non-profit TLD" argument.

It also allows a set of non-profit SLD. So what's your point?

> So-called non-profits, that will quickly turn into private fiefdoms with
> all the monopoly power that lock-in brings.   

Likely, yes.

> For a taste of this, look at how some ccTLD delegatees (ab)use their
> monopoly power.

We had to collect the registry conditions of about forty ccTLD last weeks,
so I can support this point. It is enough to have a look at DENIC
development over the last few weeks..

But ICANN can not do much about this, AFAIK there are not real contracts
with ccTLDs.

> I agree with you that more TLD's will not end Registry monopoly power.

Fine. Please add the legal implications.

> But that alone is unsufficient argument to close your ears for market
> demand. You cannot go back to before 1995.

I'm not the candidate of the market. I have my own positions. Expressing
those is my way to lose this endorsment. Please believe me, that I know how
to deal with compromises and that a European @Large director is not able to
reform the ICANN alone. That's why I do not claim such a goal.

> It is clear that a dozen new TLD's is neither going to immediately break
> the power of the ".com people"  nor going to automatically lead to an
> exponential explosion in the TLD space. 

Yep. I will only increase the chaos solely for adding some new profitable
companies to the stock market.

> >PS: I added some of my recent answers to
> >    http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/icann.statments.html
> 
> Thanks. I wish all the candidates would do this.

Endorse me! Endorse me! (Just kidding)

> But, as observed elsewhere, the closer a candidate gets to nomination (let
> alone on the Board) the less responsive and public (s)he becomes.

Sorry for beeing on holiday (better on the clinic tour 2000). I did not
assume near real time publication of endorsments. Must be an American idea.