Roeland and all,
Roeland, you are precisely correct, as was I way back in september
last year. ICANN did not have the "Seed" capitol locked up before
they decided to get the ball rolling. I also suggested to Esther other
methods of securing funding in several posts to her on the
IFWP list and privately. She seemed to not even have a clue
as to what I was talking about the first time I contacted here on this
point, so I tried to step it through to her by the numbers, and even
had a brief phone conversation with her on that (Recording in my
archives, FWIW). But Mike Roberts and Joe Simms along with the
ICANN's "Helpers", the GIP, http://www.gip.org should have been
able to step them through all the necessary hoops with regard to
the ICANN's funding model.
To me anyway, this all adds up the the total incompetence of this
ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board. And as such they should step down, or
face the music of being removed....
Roeland you are also right with respect to setting up the ICANN as a
California based non-profit corp. You , myself, and only a few others
argued strongly against ICANN doing this in favor of setting up
as a Delaware Non-Profit or LLC I believe. But because Jon Postel
and Herb Schore (ISI) preferred for some odd reason, California,
the elected to go with California... God knows why, really! I know
I sure don't... But overall I still believe that the REAL plan was to
eventually move ICANN to Europe, like maybe Switzerland...
At any rate, the 1$-per-domain model for funding is likely to meet
with very strong opposition from the Commerce Commission, as
it really should... Not to mention it sets a very bad precedent
as well...
Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> According to ICANN, you would have to charge $1US per domain, as a floor
> price. I don't see provisions for "free" registries. You would have to
> operate outside of the ICANN scope.
>
> Personally, I don't think ICANN's revenue plan is well thought-out at
> all, mainly because they've come to it so very late. It's a desperation
> move because their funding model is not working (as I knew it wouldn't,
> as I said it wouldn't). Ergo, they're slapping this
> "per-domain-per-year" charge on at the last dying second. Since they've
> never laid any of the ground-work for this, and none of the
> fore-thought, they ain't got all the bases covered and it is going to be
> rejected. They'll become "out of funds", dry up, and blow away, unless
> someone hits them with a really big clue-bat. Their value-proposition
> doesn't have much value, for the money, CA non-profit status is killing
> them (as I knew it would). There's a LOT of dough out there to run an
> ICANN-like organization (infrastructure play), but none of it wants to
> be a non-profit.This is the time of the mega-buck Internet play, that's
> where all the [investment] money is going.
>
> If you think that this is a great big "I told you so" [to the
> pro-non-profit camp], y'all would be correct. Also, lawyers [Simms]
> shouldn't ever be allowed to dictate the structure of a corp and CEO's,
> as well as BoD members, had better understand corporate law almost as
> well as the lawyers do. Let's learn the lessons and move forward.
>
> --------------------
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> http://www.mhsc.com/
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------
> Lead; Follow; Get out of the way.
> ... pick ONE!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> > Behalf Of William X. Walsh
> > Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 10:38 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] RE: who tells the quill holder what
> > to write?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 00:38:08 -0400 (EDT), "Richard J. Sexton"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >At 12:04 AM 7/9/99 -0400, Jon Zittrain wrote:
> > >><shrug> I just meant to list the sorts of pressures that
> > have moved DNS
> > >>issues squarely out of the realm of the technical. I
> > understand that some
> > >>entrepreneurs want *un*shared registries--they could make
> > lots of money as
> > >>the sole holders of them--while others want a piece of a
> > registry: witness
> > >>the number of companies seeking to join the shared
> > registration system for
> > >>.com, .net, and .org. And, the White Paper--which I think
> > I've seen you
> > >>call a consensus document at times--does reference the idea. I
> > >>dunno. Doesn't seem like bias to me to simply include it
> > on the list, but
> > >>I suppose he who has the blinders on doesn't readily know what he's
> > >>missing. ...JZ
> > >
> > >Uh, I don't think the guy doing .FREE was planning
> > >on being "an entrapeneur wanting to make a lot
> > >of money". Some people probably do, while others
> > >hum the cost recovery mantra.
> > >
> > >Shared/non-shared, registry/registrar vs. peered registry,
> > >non-profit/for-profit/low-profit...
> > >it's a big mix and there's a lot of permutations
> > >and combinations. Again, all the world's not
> > >.com and there are too many applications of the
> > >DNS to be covered under a single homogensous model,
> > >no matter how well it may or may not work for .com.
> >
> > Our .BOX would be setup as a $5/2 year service.
> > Oh yeah, we would get real rich on that. NOT.
> >
> > We are going ahead with it anyway, we have setup a third level
> > registry to mirror registrations under, and will operate it for free
> > at the moment.
> >
> > When I was with ML.org we talked quite frequently about how it would
> > be great to operate a totally free user supported registry for second
> > level domains under a free TLD.
> >
> > This constant idea of there being a single workable model for TLDs is
> > absolutely wrong. ML.org operated a 3rd level registry with WELL over
> > 150,000 domains when it was shut down (I never got the final number
> > before it was closed, but estimates from a member of the board put the
> > number just short of 200,000). DHS.org, formed by some former ml.org
> > staff, currently is just short of 30,000 domains in their free 3rd
> > level registry. People who need personal domains WILL support
> > non-profit and low profit models. Some people who need commercial
> > domains but are willing to live with a much lower level of service
> > guarantee in exchange for the low entry cost would also support these
> > models.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William X. Walsh
> > General Manager, DSo Internet Services
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
> >
> > "The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
> > characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
> > --Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
> > -
> > This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To
> > unsubscribe,
> > send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
> >
>
> -
> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
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
