I don't have a great quarrel over the $1.00 per year per registered
name, but I am very concerned about oversight for ICANN in its use of
the funds!
And, at a higher meta level I find the chasm among conceptual business
models for naming and the registering of names to be a major problem.
We have two main camps:
One seems to believe that all names under any registry actually belong
to (are the property of the registry), so that all TLD names, whether
registered or not, belong to "the root". And all SLD names are the
property of their TLD registry. In this case to the IANA root, soon
to be "owned" and controlled by ICANN, thus becoming the ICANN ROOT.
Now, I have serious problems understanding this "owenrship"
relationship, especially whan it is applied to a name that no one has
ever conceived of before the registrant shows up to register it.
(I would provide an example of such a name here, but then I could not
claim my example name had never before been conceived of;-)...
Now, my preferred (yes I am baised in this regard) is that names
belong to the registrant and the registrant, by registering the name
with a registry, is only renting advertising space for the registered
name, and the registry is responible, by contract, to advertise it
along with certain related data on a DNS server to enable otehr
Interent users to resolve the registered DNS name into the desired
related data (e.g., and IP address).
Now, these two conflciting coneptual business modelas cannot be
employed simultaneously in the DNS system. We have a great need to
sort this out before we go much further, just because this conflict is
at the root (no pun) of our conflicting positions on the issues.
Now, if there is an conflict issue about who owns a name and who has
the right to register it with an advertising registry, then that issue
should be settled outside of the registry, as the registries job is to
maintain data integrity and robust and effective operational DNS
advertising service for its registered names.
So, does a TM owner have the sole right to register a trademarked name
in every possible DNS zone, as all possible DNS zone levels?
AS an aside, I also notice that there really is no argument about
whtehr or not DNS names are owned by someone.
The only argument is about "Who is the owner?" Uhntil we can decide
and agree on "Who is the owner?" of every DNS name, we are doomed to
fight over the details of running the DNS system!
So, let's stop fighting and decide who owns DNS names.
Is ICANN setting itself up to rent names to registrants or to rent
advertising space to DNS Name Owners?
I vote for the advertising business model!
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Sat, 06 Mar 1999 15:13:03 -0500:
}
}David Schutt wrote:
}
}> (....)This is part of the point that I was trying to make. There is no reason
}> that
}> there has to be an annual fee to keep an entry in a notebook. Once the entry
}> is made, there is no reason why it can't just sit there. It seems a bit like
}> extortion to continuously charge for not deleting the name.
}>
}> If that entry is used by someone to provide a service, then that service is
}> something that might be charged for on a continuing basis. Keeping the the
}> entry does -not- have to be tied to the provision of name resolution
}> service.
}
}Perhaps a portion of this fee is for value-added services like Mr. Gomes' online
}"answering service" and upgrading the system software or for company costs like
}defending against court complaints. (And, yes, I'm sure we all have suggestions
}for ways to save money on the latter.) In terms of ICANN overhead, we are
}talking about adding the services of a membership (registration, campaigning,
}balloting), an internal review (data base, decision-makers, hearing rooms), a
}government advisory council (travel expenses, negotiating time) and even more.
}Some of these chores were handled previously by the government at its own
}expense. Is it likely that this financial burden will be paid out of registry
}and registrar fees? I heard second-hand (but did not confirm) that RIPE now has
}over 54 employees. Personally, I am very concerned that the golden days of
}relatively cheap entree to the Net are about to end.
}
}Jon Postel had a salaried day job, so he didn't have to charge for his
}notebook. How would you separate out these expenses?
}
}Diane Cabell
}http://www.mama-tech.com
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
}21 School Street, 3rd Floor
}Boston, MA
}1.617.227.1600 (vox)
}1.617.227.1608 (fax)
}
}
