On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, elliot noss wrote:
> Patrick:
>
> I will try and be a bit more succinct here so that a couple people may
> actually read the whole email.
:-)
> Patrick, I don't think openness equals agreeing with you. I think your
> email proves MY point. You describe in great detail all the
> opportunities you had for input. There is NO requirement that you get
> your way or that people agree with you. With respect to alt root issues
> I don't.
Elliot, with regards to the alt-TLD issue, while I disagree, I completely
respect your P.O.V. Repeating what I said previously I'm pretty confident
that you are going to do what is best for your organization and your customers.
What I think is important is being able to discuss the issue in a calm,
rational manner as we are, rather than resorting to name-calling and
hysterics as some participants invaribly do. Personally, in the current
climate I don't think the alt-root operators really warrant much
consideration anyways.
Where we have a marked difference of opinion and/or perception is on the
issue of input into ICANN. The fact that you chose to respond to me
illustrates that you actually *read* what I said, and rather you
agreed with it or not, considered the words. That represents a marked
departure from the results of any participation in ICANN-related
activities, and is why I don't think I've proven your point in any way.
The decisions surrounding ICANN were made among a small group of people,
most of which are still unknown to me, and who certainly made no attempt
at self-identification(other than those in the early days holding Jon
Postel out.) These people did *not* want public input or debate on the
structure or operation of the organization. They shunned it, but needed to
offer the appearance that there was a channel so that they could
misrepresent this as some sort of "bottoms-up", "consensus-based"
decision-making, a lie that continues to be perpetuated to this day
although thankfully less and less people seem to swallowing it.
Throwing "input" into a black hole is not a constructive use of time or
energy. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with my opinions. I
do have a problem when mine and innumerable other peoples' opinions are
ignored and I'm told that the process was "bottoms-up", "open",
"transparent", etc.
> Let's get to the meat of it. You say "Throughout all of this
> participation, I watched a small group of insular,
> manipulative, back-room players succeed in gaining and solidfying
> control of what is arguably one of the most important resources on the
> Internet..". I have heard this numerous times. I want to have this
> point out here and now (and look forward to Jim Fleming taking my
> comments out of context and forwarding them to the world ;-)).
>
> Who are the members of this group?
The whole point is I don't know who all was/is involved, and neither do
the vast majority of people who attempted to participate in good faith
in this "bottoms-up", "open", "transparent", "consensus-based"
organization.
You could start with Joe Sims and Jones Day though who have certainly
generated a fairly sizable set of bills for ICANN to pay. Mike Roberts is
likewise a good candidate, given he initially lead ICANN and oddly enough the
organization he was previously involved with, Educase, was later gifted with
the .edu registry.
> Let's run through it. Is it Verisign? Well they lost the monopoly and
> have gone from 100% market share to about 17%. The future of their registrar
> business is in question.
Market share of what? Domain name registrations? You certainly know that
ICANN has made acquisitions which they continue to run under the original
branding, right? The also seem to have retained 100% of the .com domain
name registry business which is by far the most lucrative. But there was
an "open", "transparent" process regarding the .com bid right? The one in
which Joe Sims stated that the contract developed was non-negotiable, and
then when the Department of Commerce got involved it suddenly became
negotiable?
> So let's look at who has benefitted. In my view there are a few smaller
> players (of which Go Daddy and Enom are the largest) and us. Go Daddy
> and Enom have succeeded, IMHO, because they offer dirt-cheap prices and
> we have succeeded, IMHO, becuase we realized that webhosters, ISPs, et
> al are the ones that actually sell domain names. I also believe that
> all of these things have GREATLY BENEFITTED registrants who are WAY
> better off then they were.Now let me go further. I believe Tucows has
> been the single greatest beneficiary of this ICANN process. Not because
> of back room manipulation but because with a more level playing field
> doing the right thing pays off.
These organizations along with Tucows benefitted because they decided
to play ball with the folks running the show. Having a "bottoms-up",
"consensus-based" organization isn't necessary or desireable for the
majority of domain name registry/registrars, any more than the RBOCs would
want to have policy questions decided by their customers.
> So let me ask you point blank. Patrick, am I an "insular, manipulative,
> back-room player"? Cause if I am, it aint all its cracked up to be!
If you are asking my opinion, which is admittedly based on limited
information, you are simply someone that decided that the process was
unimportant, and that it wasn't and isn't very important to have the truly
"consensus-based" organization ICANN was supposed to have been as long as you
feel the viewpoints and opinions of your organization are adequately
represented, which you obviously do.
> There is much I don't like. I want more tlds. I think the UDRP needs
> work. The new CEO better make peace with ccTLDs and the RIRs. A
> reformed ICANN needs to be better at enforcing the contracts. But boy
> are things way better off then they were. And in three short years.
Well, that's certainly one opinion.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
