[ga] Re: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Joe and all,

  Well I don't know if $6.00/year is the right amount or even accurate,
but it surely true, and already proven that what ICANN wants in terms
of a yearly fee, is FAR too much.  That was my main point.

  As to your other point regarding China's national TLD system,
I am very aware that in comparison to ICANN/Legacy Root structure,
it is far better managed, and at far less cost than what ICANN
seems to be desiring.  But I don't have any firm and confirmable
numbers.

  Introducing new gTLD's and IDN's by ICANN certainly recognizes
that in the not too distant past that ICANN than was wrong, and that
new gTLD demand is great, although it remains uncertain that such
demand can or will be recognized, ergo financially sustainable.  But
given what ICANN is asking for in terms of $$ in maintanance in the
Legacy Root, I have to wonder how long will any new introduced
TLD remain financially viable?  And than ask, how long will it take
for other alternitive and potentially inclusive root structures become
market and financially viable?  I don't have an answer to either
question that I would be willing to bank on.

  What is nearly certain in the current credit crunch and global
financial
crisis, new gTLD's and IDN's will be fewer than if neither situation was

in effect.  Yet allot of private funds are avaliable as I get offers for

huge amounts of money for any venture I might desire to start at very
low interest ( 3.5 - 1.7% ) and very reasonable repayment and
restructure
out terms as well.  Problem with this is for non-profit based gTLD's and

IDN's such loans and avaliable venture capital, are nearly
useless/wothless,
unless such a venture is a strictly membership based and partly funded
organization with the registrants picking up most of the rest of the
costs,
in terms of a gTLD or IDN.

Joe Baptista wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Jeffrey A.
> Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>      You should be able to manage your own gTLD for far less than
>
>      $185k and $75k/year in fees to ICANN for presence in the
>      legacy
>      Roots.
>
>
> In real technical terms you should be able to manage your TLD for
> about $6.00 per year.  Thats the best cost estimate I can provide.  It
> is the same cost estimate for .com.  Let us not forget that the root
> is only another domain system - it just happens to be at the top
> level.  The principle is no different then .com.
>
> But ICANN is a bullshit system that depends on user ignorance to be
> exclusive and monopolistic - which it no longer is.  The ICANN root is
> now dwarfed by the chinese national tld system.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
>
>
>       ICANN is a Calif. non-profit 501 (C3) corporation, and most
>      of
>      its funding by law must come from donations.  It deosn 't
>      now, and
>      never has.  That's a problem of crediability that has been
>      with ICANN
>      sense its conception.
>
>      Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
>      > Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public
>      Forum, I sent
>      > them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here.
>
>      > -----
>      >
>      > Dear Board of ICANN,
>      >
>      > as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public
>      Forum, but due
>      > to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc"
>      afternoon session
>      > to express my views, I am sending them directly to the
>      Board, copying the
>      > Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least
>      one of them can
>      > forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish
>      them somewhere
>      > for yesterday's audience.
>      >
>      > Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that
>      several people
>      > already expressed their discomfort for what happened
>      yesterday. However,
>      > please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the
>      community and the
>      > Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the
>      moment, is one
>      > of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and
>      accountability.
>      > Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the
>      Public Forum
>      > would have been crowded and well attended, and the
>      decision to allot just
>      > one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more
>      into it, is a
>      > terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there
>      is ample time
>      > for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this
>      situation
>      > happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff
>      by the Board.
>      >
>      > Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a
>      gTLD
>      > application which may or may not materialize, but that
>      constitutes a good
>      > proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well
>      thought-out draft RFP.
>      > Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and
>      culture which have
>      > been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand
>      years, but which
>      > will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together
>      with the elderly
>      > people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in
>      transitioning
>      > them to the Internet age.
>      >
>      > A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for
>      years to create
>      > online resources in this language - including, for
>      example, a Wikipedia
>      > edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to
>      that culture and
>      > language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It
>      would boost the
>      > sense of identity and community, and provide a visible
>      home to gather all
>      > efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business
>      opportunity - it is
>      > imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few
>      dozen
>      > registrations, which we would gladly give away for free
>      through a
>      > non-profit vehicle.
>      >
>      > I think that what we would like to do is a deserving
>      purpose, at least as
>      > good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better
>      than the abundant
>      > defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To
>      run a TLD with
>      > such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff
>      and huge server
>      > farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all
>      the time, skills
>      > and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind
>      donations. However,
>      > even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an
>      impossible task
>      > to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay
>      ICANN fees, and we
>      > would likely score very badly against operational and
>      financial criteria
>      > designed for multimillionaire global ventures.
>      >
>      > Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is
>      obsolete, amateurish or
>      > unimportant, please think again. This is the way all
>      ccTLDs and gTLDs
>      > started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have
>      become pretty
>      > successful by now; actually, the only ones going for
>      bankruptcy lie among
>      > those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP
>      processes. This is
>      > actually the way almost every innovation happens over the
>      Internet, still
>      > today.
>      >
>      > The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at
>      CERN, by a couple
>      > of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of
>      their real job.
>      > Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that
>      overturned
>      > billionaire industries were invented by one or a few
>      individuals with no
>      > money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What
>      would happen to
>      > innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new
>      Internet draft?
>      >
>      > I understand that there are costs attached to the
>      establishment of a new
>      > TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive
>      country like
>      > Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year
>      for each
>      > application, and one wonders why do you need all that
>      work; and $75'000
>      > per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work
>      required in the absence
>      > of special events is literally zero, is plainly
>      ridiculous. However, if
>      > you want to extract money from rich applicants going for
>      remunerative
>      > global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets
>      trying to protect
>      > their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses
>      impossible.
>      >
>      > There are several pricing structures that could address
>      this issue:
>      > special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for
>      TLDs that don't
>      > reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in
>      cooperation with
>      > appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless"
>      applications that have
>      > specific cultural or technological value. Several people
>      have promised to
>      > submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it
>      is paramount
>      > that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without
>      putting in place
>      > features to address this issue.
>      >
>      > In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP,
>      ICANN will be
>      > judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into
>      the root. It may
>      > get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be
>      private corporate
>      > registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with
>      some kind of vague
>      > specialization, ICANN will have failed.
>      >
>      > But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that
>      the failure
>      > might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well
>      managed business
>      > entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of
>      corporate best
>      > practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity -
>      it is a strange
>      > beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal
>      for a business
>      > corporation might actually make parts of the community
>      feel not at home
>      > any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots,
>      with the nature
>      > and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is
>      doomed - all the
>      > governmental deals and business partnerships won't be
>      enough to preserve
>      > its prestige and credibility.
>      >
>      > I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board
>      that of ensuring
>      > that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the
>      Internet is preserved,
>      > or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN
>      adopts, and even that
>      > these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle,
>      the fulfillment
>      > of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy
>      objectives in terms of
>      > development and human rights. These are not just high
>      sounding words, they
>      > carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything
>      ICANN does when it
>      > comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental
>      role in
>      > coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than
>      business as usual.
>      > Please do not forget this.
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > --
>      > vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a]
>      bertola.eu   <--------
>      > -------->  finally with a new website at
>      http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > At-Large mailing list
>      > At-Large@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      >
>      
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>      >
>      > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>      Regards,
>
>      Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k
>      members/stakeholders strong!)
>      "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>        Abraham Lincoln
>      "YES WE CAN!"  Barak ( Berry ) Obama
>
>      "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with
>      what is
>      very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
>      "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
>      burden, B;
>      liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
>      by
>      P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>      United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
>      1947]
>      =====
>      =========================================================
>      Updated 1/26/04
>      CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data
>      security IDNS.
>      div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
>      ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
>      jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Baptista
> www.publicroot.org
> PublicRoot Consortium
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
> Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>  Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
>     Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barak ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827