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://rmeyer@mhsc.com
--------------------
Lead; Follow; Get out of the way.
... pick ONE!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-idno-discuss@idno.org
> [mailto:owner-idno-discuss@idno.org]On
> Behalf Of William X. Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 1999 10:38 PM
> To: list@ifwp.org; idno-discuss@idno.org
> Cc: domain-policy@lists.internic.net
> 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"
> <richard@tangled.web> 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: william@dso.net 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
> majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
>