Re: [ICANN-EU] fwd: ICANN's $50,000.00 Question

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Andy,
This post is excellent. It only misses one point I made to
Mike Roberts early August. You know that I have two TLD
projects ".sys" and ".wiz".

Initially these projects were to be proposed by a company.

Two large international lawyers firms strongly advised me
against it, telling me I was directly heading for jail as a crook
or as a bad administrator.

They repeated their advice once they saw the 15 August terms:
you have to give up every right on your money, on the concepts
and on the management.

So I set up two no-profit consortiums. We met a human
problem some know about on this ML: it helped us to
understand we would be better of in:

-  publishing our project to protect them and getting feed backs
-  going for a ULD free appoach (SLD and alt.root)

Mike Roberst was very clear in his response talking about
international domain name business. ICANN is not respecting
its charter:

-  equal to everyone: they favor large groups
-  no registrar/registry business: they are a registrar
    for the NTIA registry.

This is why we will soon see independent registries
and roots for an unlimited number of TLDs. Just look
at the way rules are enforced :

-  NSI has open 155 new de facto TLD in translating
    com, org and net in 55 different caracter sets.
-  JPNIC and KNIC have started MINC
-  NSI has open new TLDs in selling .co, .tv, .cc, etc...
    domain names
-  EEC has broken down the ISO 3166-1 magic rule
    with the alternative ".eu" TLD
-  VeriSign claims to be the "commercial owner" of
    com, net, org ....
-  ICANN must recall registrars they have no right
    to start selling now gTLD domain names

Two months after Yokohama.... Just wait for the
Happy New Year!
Jefsey


At 23:14 01/10/00, you wrote:
> >From: Paul Garrin <pg@namespace.org>
> >Subject: ICANN's $50,000.00 Question
> >Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:08:45 -0400
> >
> >      Is the ICANN $50,000.00
> >     TLD Application Fee a Scam?
> >
> >
> >The Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and
> >Numbers (ICANN) is accpeting proposals from
> >sponsors and organizations for new Generic Top
> >Level Domains (gTLDs) for possible addition to the
> >Global Domain Root so users worldwide can register
> >and access internet sites worldwide with domain
> >names such as "new.world" or "bargain.shop" and
> >others, in the same way that they can access
> >"shopping.com" or any other ".com" address.
> >
> >
> >The application fee for sponsors of a new gTLD is
> >non-refundable $50,000, payable to ICANN. The
> >deadline for all applications is October 2, 2000.
> >
> >
> >In November, 2000 ICANN will select the "winning"
> >proposals and recommend to the US Department of
> >Commerce NTIA to activate the new gTLDs by
> >adding them to the Global Domain Root, physically
> >under the control of Network Solutions, Inc.
> >
> >
> >Many have expressed concerns over the amount and
> >the validity of the non-refundable fee, especially
> >non-profit groups and small entrepeneurs who feel
> >that the fee is excessive and raises the barrier of entry
> >for becoming a TLD operator beyond their means
> >while unfairly favoring large corporations with little
> >or no interest in protecting the values of free speech
> >and civil society.
> >
> >
> >To add to the controversy, such an application
> >process and fee has never been imposed before for
> >new TLD registries, including in the cases of new
> >"country code" TLDs now marketed for commercial
> >purposes such as ".cc" ".nu" ".ws" ".tv" and others.
> >Rights to those and other so-called "ccTLDs" were
> >granted to private corporations free of charge and
> >absent due diligence review of their capabilities and
> >business plans. In most cases, the granting of ccTLDs
> >in 1997 and 1998 were the result of "insider"
> >connections to the IANA (Internet Assigned
> >Numbers Agency) by the late Dr. Jon Postel, the
> >predecessor of ICANN, without any open solicitation,
> >review or competitive bid. Since Dr. Postel's untimely
> >death in October, 1998 at the moment ICANN was
> >called before the House Commerce Committee for
> >review, ICANN has assumed the functions formerly
> >carried out by the IANA under Dr. Postel. ICANN
> >has been widely criticised for operating in secret with
> >no public oversight or review of their decisions and
> >policies, which in the end affect all internet users
> >worldwide.
> >
> >
> >Legitimacy and precedence aside, critics of ICANN
> >are likely to question the chances that ICANN, whose
> >board is dominated by corporate interests such as
> >IBM, MCI-Worldcom, ATT, AOL, Network
> >Solutions, British Telecom, and various intellectual
> >property and trademark interests, will select any new
> >TLDs at all from the paid applications. In any event,
> >the possibility that a majority of the applications will
> >be rejected by ICANN causing most applicants to
> >each lose $50,000.00. If ICANN receives a large
> >number of applications but only activates 1 or 2 new
> >gTLDs most of the applicants will lose their money
> >and be kept out of the registry business.
> >
> >
> >This is not the first time that ICANN has tried to
> >extract fees from domain companies. In 1999 ICANN
> >attempted to impose a $1.00 per domain per year
> >"tax" on every ".com" ".org" and ".net" domain
> >registered. After review and hearings before the US
> >House Committee on Commerce, ICANN was forced
> >by Congress to witdraw the "dollar-per-domain tax".
> >A source inside the House Commerce Committee
> >(who asked not to be named) commented that if the
> >issue of the $50.000.00 non-refundable fee is brought
> >before the Commerce Committee it is likely that, just
> >as in the "dollar-per-domain tax", the fee would be
> >overturned. The majority of members on the House
> >Commerce Committee are opposed to any form of
> >regulation or taxation of the internet.
> >
> >
> >How much will ICANN get away with is a big
> >question. It's probably no coincidence that the
> >solicitation of applications and fees was timed when
> >the Congress went on break in August. Although
> >Congress is back in session, many members are up
> >for re-election and are spending most of their
> >energies on their campaigns and not on legislation.
> >Whether or not there will be hearings or review
> >before the elections is unknown, as is the possibility
> >that Congress will order ICANN to refund the fees
> >after the fact.
> >
> >
> >It is not yet known how many companies will apply
> >for gTLD registry status and pay the non-refundable
> >fee. It is also important to note that the ultimate order
> >to add new gTLDs to the Global Domain Root
> >comes not from ICANN, but from the NTIA, as a
> >written directive pursuant to "Amendment 11" of the
> >cooperative agreement between the NTIA and NSI.
> >Such a written directive would then give Network
> >Solutions the green light to make the necessary
> >additions to the "root.zone" file that runs on
> >"root-server A" that would activate the new gTLDs
> >to the entire internet. One letter and a simple text edit
> >will change the world.