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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Lutz and all,

Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:

> 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.

  Any time you use the word "every" or "always" you are usually wrong,
or mistaken.  This is one of those times.  Non-de-jure solutions
can be applied or determined if open discourse is practiced.  ICANN
has not done this very well as many have pointed out.

>
>
> > 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.

  FIrst of all I don't see any evidence of this necessarily being the case.
Jurisdictional issues can be handled as was discussed in WG-C with
new TLD's and the potential DN that might be registered in those
new name spaces based on the laws of the respective countries or
in accordance with any existing international trade agreements,
(Nafta, Gatt, ect.. )

>
>
> > 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.

  They don't have too.  So I guess I don't see your concern or point here
necessarily.  Please elaborate...

>
>
> > 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.

  Well read them...

>
>
> > In other words: Industry regulation.
>
> equals to lobby regulation. The more you can pay the more rights you will
> collect. :-(

  Unfortunately this is largely true, although it should not be.  But it can be
changed or ignored...

>
>
> > 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.

  Unfortunately true.  The DNSO needs revamping badly...

>
>
> >>>> 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.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208