FYI:
>Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:03:08 -0400
>To: Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Fwd: Re: [names] New gTLDs
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>At 11:21 AM 9/26/99 , someone wrote:
> >Dear Jay,
> >
> >Quite sorry to read the below message. Is it possible to put together a
> >brief history of your involvement, with some additional detail on the cited
> >Harvard Law class incident. I'm trying to educate my congress member on the
> >issue and I'd like to send it to him.
>
>
>Here is the exchange on the Harvard Law
>class list that resulted in Iperdome's
>announcement on Friday.
>
>Note that Mike Roberts, president of ICANN,
>told some reporters back in January that
>Iperdome's business model was not an option
>under ICANN. (If this were true, it would
>be a serious violation of the ICANN by-laws,
>and show a total disregard for the intent
>of the White Paper).
>
>When challenged, Mike Roberts admitted that
>it was true, and replied that the business
>model issue had been decided by the U.S.
>Government, and that Iperdome's position
>was illegal anyway.
>
>FWIW, those reasons were countered below
>with quotes from the U.S. Government, and an
>analysis from the Federal Trade Commission.
>
>No further comments from Mike have been
>received.
>
>Jay.
>
>
>[Apologies for the heated tone]
>
> >Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 12:36:34 -0400
> >To: Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [names] New gTLDs
> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >At 12:19 PM 9/24/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
> > >At 10:37 AM 9/24/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
> > > >At 07:28 PM 9/23/99 , Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> > > > >This list is for discussion of the issues, rather than attacks on fellow
>listmembers' motives and agendas--however justifiably attackable one may deem them.
>This isn't the first email to cross that line in my view among the participants here,
>but it's the most recent. Until the list moderating baton is passed to the student
>coordinator(s) who volunteered to inherit it, I ask all participants to refrain from
>accusing others of ill motives.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >Sorry,
> > > >
> > > >For the benefit of the students, let me
> > > >try this once again . . .
> > > >
> > >
> > >Let's see if I've got this right. Jay objected to my
> > >saying to a reporter last January that there weren't
> > >going to be any more monopoly grants of gTLD's.
> > >For the record, I repeated my prior assertion and
> > >said that ICANN and the government saw the solution
> > >space for gTLD's as requiring some formula for robust
> > >competition.
> > >
> > >Jay responds by saying he's going out of business and
> > >that the problem is one of business models and control.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >This one topic is probably the most important,
> > > >and most divisive, in the entire DNS debate.
> > > >It is a question of business models, and it
> > > >speaks to the very essence of what this fight
> > > >is about -- control.
> > > >
> > > >Historically, the Internet has experienced
> > > >phenomenal growth as a vehicle for *private*
> > > >resources to be interconnected, for the
> > > >benefit of all.
> > > >
> > > >This system was first challenged with a
> > > >proposal known as the gTLD-MoU, the immediate
> > > >predecessor to ICANN. The gTLD-MoU would have
> > > >declared the name space a "public resource",
> > > >which in turn, would change all names from
> > > >privately controlled, to publicly managed.
> > > >
> > > >This *single* issue was hotly contested
> > > >during the MoU days. It was a *major* reason
> > > >that the U.S. Government *had* to intervene
> > > >into the DNS Wars.
> > > >
> > > >And after thousands of pages of suggestions,
> > > >and comments, and meetings, etc., etc., etc.,
> > > >the U.S. Government decided that there was
> > > >*NO* consensus on this issue.
> > > >
> > > >To address this lack of consensus, the U.S.
> > > >Government eventually proposed the White Paper,
> > > >which was to use a consensus based, bottom-up
> > > >process to answer this question.
> > > >
> > >
> > >Then Jay goes on to say that the problem is that
> > >I personally have made such a decision and that
> > >I claimed consensus for it - which no where appears
> > >in my note from yesterday - which indeed says that
> > >the assertion is based on the model for ICANN
> > >contained in the white paper and in the restrictions
> > >on corporate behavior contained in the antitrust
> > >laws
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Yet, it appears that Mike has already made
> > > >his decision. And once again, it is based
> > > >upon some nebulous declaration of community
> > > >consensus.
> > > >
> > > >So, in closing, I challenge Mike to document
> > > >his claims that the question of Business models
> > > >has been decided, by documenting both public
> > > >comments, and the actual decision making
> > > >process.
> > > >
> > > >Until he does this, his claims remain nothing
> > > >more than smoke and mirrors.
> > > >
> > >
> > >If Jay thinks that the language of the white paper
> > >and the language of the antitrust laws is smoke and
> > >mirrors, he's certainly entitled to that view, but
> > >I doubt it is widely shared.
> > >
> >
> >More smoke and mirrors!
> >
> >Here's the relevant section from the U.S. Government's
> >Green Paper, the pre-cursor to the White Paper:
> >
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/022098fedreg.htm
> >
> > There appears to be strong consensus that, at least at this time,
> >domain name
> >registration--the registrar function--should be competitive. There is
> >disagreement, however, over the wisdom of promoting competition at the
> >registry level.
> > Some have made a strong case for establishing a market-driven
> >registry system. Competition among registries would allow registrants
> >to choose among TLDs rather than face a single option. Competing TLDs
> >would seek to heighten their efficiency, lower their prices, and
> >provide additional value-added services. Investments in registries
> >could be recouped through branding and marketing. The efficiency,
> >convenience, and service levels associated with the assignment of names
> >could ultimately differ from one TLD registry to another. Without these
> >types of market pressures, they argue, registries will have very little
> >incentive to innovate.
> > Others feel strongly, however, that if multiple registries are to
> >exist, they should be undertaken on a not-for-profit basis. They argue
> >that lack of portability among registries (that is, the fact that users
> >cannot change registries without adjusting at least part of their
> >domain name string) could create lock-in problems and harm consumers.
> >For example, a registry could induce users to register in a top-level
> >domain by charging very low prices initially and then raise prices
> >dramatically, knowing that name holders will be reluctant to risk
> >established business by moving to a different top-level domain.
> > We concede that switching costs and lock-in could produce the
> >scenario described above. On the other hand, we believe that market
> >mechanisms may well discourage this type of behavior. On balance, we
> >believe that consumers will benefit from competition among market
> >oriented registries, and we thus support limited experimentation with
> >competing registries during the transition to private sector
> >administration of the domain name system.
> >
> >
> >And here is a detailed discussion of the merit,
> >AND LEGALITY, for competitive registries by the
> >Federal Trade Commission. I respectfully suggest
> >that the FTC has quite a bit more experience in
> >these matters than the unelected board and
> >president of ICANN!
> >
> >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/scanned/FTC.htm
> >
> >
> > >In notes to this list, in statements elsewhere, and in
> > >actions taken at meetings, ICANN has made it abundantly
> > >clear that the Board considers the future of the gTLD
> > >namespace to be an important question on which community
> > >views will be carefully solicited and thoughtfully
> > >considered before any policy actions are proposed. If
> > >Jay is interested in being part of the solution to this
> > >complex set of issues, he has plenty of opportunity to
> > >participate in the process.
> >
> >
> >Sure, Jay, your invited to comment.
> >
> >And as long as you agree with *us*,
> >we'll incorporate your comments into
> >*our* "consensus" document ;-)
> >
> >Jay.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >- Mike
> > >
> > > >
> > > > IMHO & FWIW!
> > > >
> > > > Jay.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >At 06:30 PM 9/23/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
> > > > >>At 04:19 PM 9/23/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
> > > > >> >Yes, it's true, the solution space for new gTLD's doesn't include
> > > > >> >any more grants of monopoly windfall profits.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >But that doesn't have anything to do with me or with ICANN.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >It's against the law.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Funny, that.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I wonder why Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's
> > > > >>technology czar, proposed a solution that was
> > > > >>"against the law" (aka The Green Paper)!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Let's face it Mike, no amount of "spin" will
> > > > >>change the facts -- you have a pre-ordained
> > > > >>agenda, you have no interest in living up to
> > > > >>the lofty goals of the White Paper, and your
> > > > >>organization is a sham.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Jay.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >The government essentially admitted it made a mistake, or rather
> > > > >> >the government admitted that good intentions had gone awry in
> > > > >> >the case of its cooperative agreement with NSI, when it placed
> > > > >> >so much emphasis on "robust competition" as a major DNS
> > > > >> >goal in the white paper, and when it negotiated the new competition
> > > > >> >provisions of Amendment 11 with NSI in the summer of 1998.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >If NSI had achieved its market dominance on any other basis than
> > > > >> >that of a government contractor, it would have had serious antitrust
> > > > >> >problems a long time ago.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >The governmental may be slow, and it may be methodical, but it
> > > > >> >doesn't usually make the same mistake twice.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >I applaud the Nesson proposal. We need creative new ideas for
> > > > >> >dealing with a very complex subject, and especially ones that
> > > > >> >also meet the goals for the DNS set out in the White Paper.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >- Mike
> > > >
