On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 19:27:43 -0400, John Charles Broomfield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William Walsh wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:44:49 -0700, Dave Crocker
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >At 01:25 PM 7/13/99 , Christopher Ambler wrote:
>> >>and want to regulate the heck out of it, deven dictating business models,
>> >>such as non-profit and cost-recovery mandates.
>> >
>> >For those missing the basis for the attempt at irony, the reference
>> >pertains to the decision to require a top-level registry (e.g., the
>> >organization holding and controlling .com or the like) to be non-profit,
>> >versus permiting it to be for-profit.
>>
>> Rather than letting multiple gTLDs exist, with different models, and
>> letting consumers decide which they prefer.
>>
>> The difference is that Dave's view doesn't permit anything BUT his
>> view, whereas Chris's permits both of them (and others) to coexist.
>>
>> You decide who is more reasonable.
>
>Actually both views, apart from being mutually exclusive also dictate what
>may or may not happen to the consumer.
They are not mutually exclusive (by the way note that this person is a
CORE supporter, and approach his comments from that point of view).
The open view from Chris permits the non-profit model to COEXIST. It
is CORE who insists the two models cannot coexist. Of course, it is
in CORE's interest to do so.
>Let's be honest and admit that consumers do NOT check out the business model
>behind a TLD, haven't done so in the past, and I really can't see them doing
>so in the future. Consumers in general just think that it's good or bad for
>their name to have a com/net/org at the end as opposed to having their own
That is true with regard to ccTLDs to gTLDs. We are discussing NEW
gTLDs here, and I'd like to see evidence on your claim that consumers
will not take business models into account. I don't buy it.
>ccTLD. Or in the case of the USA, then the choice is even more limited in
>reality, because the choice of "xxx.us" is a non-starter (as we ALL know).
>Given this scenario, then consumers are just going to pick amongst a bunch
>of potential gTLDs the one that "fits" best their business as they see it
>(hey, I'm a law firm, so bloggs.law is what I want... hey, I'm a web
>designer, so bloggs.web is what I want... hey I'm in the sport sector, so
>bloggs.sport is what I want).
>The choice of TLD comes BEFORE finding out what has to be done to go and get
>that domain delegated.
>The choice, no matter how some people may want to paint it is *NOT* as
>follows:
>"hey, I like the business model of ".sport", but don't like that of ".law",
>so although IAAL (as opposed to IANAL) I will register and promote my law
>firm as 'bloggs.sport'"
When we have competitive gTLD REGISTRIES, this indeed will be a
consideration for many, especially when it comes to past history.
People DO share experiences. I'm on a number of lists where people do
just that. They will share experiences and make decisions based on
their own experience, and the comments from others.
Again, you are using ccTLDs vs gTLDs to backup your arguments, this is
the worst application of logic I've seen in this thread.
>If anything, if the business model of ".sport" is good, and the business
>model of ".law" is bad, then the line would rather go like:
>"hey, I'd like to get bloggs.law registered. Damn, those guys at ".law" are
>a load of jerks... Why can't they have a system like the guys at ".sport"?
>Pity I'm stuck with these idiots billing me double, because I've got my
>letterhead with bloggs.law and there really wasn't anywhere else sensible to
>go (I mean, I can't imagine having tried to convince my customers I was
>serious with bloggs.sport, and it didn't look good on my visiting cards).
>I also hate the fact that they screw up my whois entry, send me never
>ending unsolicited email, every now and then corrupt their zone data, accuse
>me of not paying and cut-off my domain despite the fact that I *had* paid
>them, stick two fingers up at everyone else, keep me on hold for hours
>before answering my queries, make it nearly impossible to get to anyone
>knowledgeable in the company, and have this stupid dispute resolution
>policy. If only they HADN'T been given a blanket control over '.law' in the
>first place..."
You are naive if you think consumers and the ISPs who influence their
decisions are so willy nilly.
>Dave's view doesn't permit Chris's view, and (obviously) Chris's view
>doesn't permit Dave's view.
>Dave says that all registries must be minimal non-profit technical operations
>and that competition should be at the registrar level.
>Chris says that he wants ownership of gTLDs to be available. He tries to
>give that ugly "owning a gTLD" phrase a make-over, but it boils down to that
>anyway. In other words, that the company that runs a given registry should
>have the right to do as it wishes with that gTLD.
And compete on its own merits LIKE IN ANY OTHER MARKET.
>They ARE mutually exclusive views (despite the fact that Chris tries to make
>his look a little less ugly than the raw truth as I point it out).
No, they aren't. Chris' view permits them to coexist. You ignore
this fact. What Chris' view does is (and I agree with it) is remove
control over the economic model of a gTLD from ICANN. If CORE wants
to setup a gTLD that can be reassigned to a new registry operator,
with competing registrars who can compete for each others business,
etc, then that is COREs right, and I will support it 100%, just as I
Would support the model IOD would have for .web.
>As has been said before, NSI has made a very good case against Chris's view,
>in that registry abuse happens.
Oh spare me. You can't compare a commercial registry with NO
competition (and the ensuing results) to what would happen in a
COMPETITIVE registry environment. And for you to even attempt to do
so just shows you have absolutely no intent on discussing this
reasonably.
--
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)
