Esther, Mike, Chris and all,
In regards to Esthers first comment, fostering competition has not been
adequately shown to be the motive in which the ICANN is operating under
thus far, or at least only in a very limited sense. Selection criteria of the
5 test bed "Registrars" that was not done in the open, suggest much,
especially given those eventual selections for the most part were GIP
financial supporters, see: www.gip.org for more information. And we
all know that the GIP.ORG has been the main financial supporter of the
ICANN to this point. This seems somewhat suspicious and potentially
incestuous as well... Second, fostering competition by providing ONLY
additional "Registrars" with only a single "Registry" is hardly much in
the direction of fostering competition in the DNS as NSI still owns
the largest "Registry" database, and the ONLY one for com. net, and org
gTLD's presently and by locking out other existing "Registries" for existing
gTLD such as .per and .web for instance, amongst others seems, again
a intentional contrivance given the large amount of discussion from these
and other interested groups. It appears a "Lockout" by design is intended
from the ICANN Interim board. (I have huge amounts of postings available
as well as recorded phone conversations along these lines should any
media agency be more interested in the WHOLE ICANN story thus far).
As to Esther's second comment or "Take 2". This seems even more
horrendous and disingenuous at best as well as there have already been
up an running Registries with their own Registration Software (For
registrar function) even before the ICANN existed as an entity. Esther
well know this. (Again I have HUGE amounts or documentation and
E-Mail posts along with several recorded phone conversations supporting
this as well).
So, again we see that Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, and the rest of the
ICANN Interim Board, are not exactly being honest in this regard, Esther's
"Take 2" comment, either.... So the game and DNS wars will continue
and there will be no reasonable resolution until or unless the ICANN
opens up its Board meetings, as the MoU and the White Paper require,
and they understand that the Stakeholder community is recognized
as the determinant body by which the ICANN must be answerable to.
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Let me add: We understand perfectly that this situation is not ideal, but
> it is temproary, and two months is a short time. There will be enouhg
> glitches getting this test going that we do not expect it to give anyone a
> competitive edge. Those who come after will learn from it without going
> through all the pain. As you know, a number of the provisions concerning
> NIS and pricing are likely to change after the test.
>
> I don't want to sound cavalier, but as the Justice Department has often said
> with regard to Microsoft in particular and competition in general, our job
> is to foster competition, not to protect competitors.
>
> Esther
>
> At 02:02 PM 26/04/99 -0700, Chris Oakes wrote:
> >Hi Esther and Mike --
> >
> >Writing to see if ICANN has responded, or wants to respond, to the
> >complaints of Jeff Field over the testbed period.
> >
> >
> >He forwarded me a copy of a mail he says he sent to you as well as the DOC.
> >
> >Any reaction? Per usual, I'm on the Wired News news deadline.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >CHris
> >
> >
> >><--- start copy of email --->
> >>
> >>Mike (and Ms. Dyson),
> >>
> >>Thank you for your reply. I and everyone here at NameSecure.com are also
> >>looking forward to an open and competitive marketplace for domain names.
> >>In that regard...
> >>
> >>Perhaps I was not clear about our concerns as to the *severely* detrimental
> >>effect the testbed period as currently planned could have on not only our
> >>company but all 29 of the post-testbed registrars. Please permit me take a
> >>stab at it again...
> >>
> >>As I understand things going forward, the testbed period begins Monday, the
> >>26th and is scheduled to last 60 days. During the 60 days (which will
> >>undoubtedly last longer) Network Solutions will be charging anyone that
> >>registers a name through them $70. They are, according to the documents,
> >>obligated to charge this legacy fee during the length of the testbed
> >>period. The five testbed registrars, however, may charge any price they
> >>wish. Presumably, they could even give it away for free and/or bundle the
> >>registry fee in with services (please correct me if I'm wrong about any of
> >>these assumptions).
> >>
> >>Assuming the above scenario, that means that during the testbed period,
> >>customers of NameSecure.com will be forced to pay the $70 fee. Now, one
> >>thing you could say to us is, "You will not have to register your
> >>customer's domain names through Network Solutions any longer. You could
> >>now register the names through one of the 5 testbed registrars." And to
> >>that I would say, "You're right. We do have that choice. However, all of
> >>our automated back-end systems have been designed to work with Network
> >>Solution's business processes. For us to change all of that for a 60-day
> >>period of time (we will ourselves be a registrar after the 60 days) would
> >>require an *enormous* amount of time, effort and money. It would force us
> >>to divert all of our resources away from our efforts to become a
> >>registrar." I don't believe you could truly expect us to do that. Please
> >>correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>
> >>So, assuming that we are not forced to change all of our back-end systems,
> >>what potential position does that leave NameSecure.com in? It leaves us in
> >>a position of our customers having to pay a $70 registration fee while at
> >>the same time one of the testbed registrars is giving it away for free or
> >>at cut-rate prices. Our business could dry up to a trickle during the
> >>60-day testbed period. By the end of the 60 days, we could be either out
> >>of business or severely crippled. I'm sure that it is not your intention
> >>to drive the 29 accredited post-testbed registrars out of business during
> >>the 60-day period, however, as the plans to go forward currently stand, it
> >>could happen. Let me try to be even clearer about this...
> >>
> >>Let's say you have a town with ten gas stations in it. And you say, "For
> >>the next 60 days, five of you can sell gas for 50 cents a gallon, but the
> >>other five have to charge 1 dollar." Obviously, I, and I'm sure you,
> >>wouldn't want to be one of the stations that has to charge a buck. But
> >>this is exactly the position that NameSecure.com now finds itself in.
> >>We're one of the stations that is going to for at least 60 days charge a
> >>buck while the testbed registrars can charge 50 cents (or give it away for
> >>free). And as you know, in Internet time, 60 days is a long long time. We
> >>will do everything we can to make sure this plan does not go forward under
> >>this scenario. But...
> >>
> >>I believe there is a simple answer to all this. As I stated before, until
> >>the testbed period is over and until the additional accredited registrars
> >>have had a reasonable chance to test and implement their own connections to
> >>the registry, the current $70 registry fee should be charged by *all*
> >>participants. In addition, no additional services should be allowed to be
> >>bundled in with the registry fee. Then, once everyone has had a
> >>*reasonable* chance to get ready, set a date for everyone to begin
> >>competing on prices and services. This will truly level the playing field
> >>for all and will negate much of the advantage (real or imagined) that has
> >>been handed to the testbed participants. Simple, huh?
> >>
> >>As you know, we've been living under a non-competitive environment in
> >>domain names for a long time. Everyone maintains that the testbed period
> >>is required to "maintain the stability of the Internet." Well, I'm asking,
> >>"What about the stability of the 29 post-testbed registrar participants?"
> >>Will another four months or so of a non-competitive environment really hurt
> >>if it ensures that the post-testbed participants are in a better position
> >>to compete?
> >>
> >>I hope I'm now making this clear for you both. I anxiously await your
> >>response. Time is of the essence. The testbed period starts Monday!
> >>
> >>Best regards,
> >>
> >>Jeff
> >>
> >><--- end copy of email --->
> >>
> >
> > Chris Oakes
> > Technology Writer
> > Wired News (www.wired.com)
> > 415.276.8538
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1 (212) 924-8800
> 1 (212) 924-0240 fax
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com http://www.icann.org
>
> High-Tech Forum in Europe: 24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
> PC Forum: March 2000, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
> Book: "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
