<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Registrants
- To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, Accountability Headquarters <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [ga] Registrants
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:13:44 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Chuck and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> INEGroup has been in existance sense 1999, so part of your statement
in response here has a significantly</P>
<P>hollow ring to it sorry to say. >:( We believe that our
leadership is exemplary although a few others from</P>
<P>other smaller registrant groups or individual registrants may differ with
same. None the less we continue</P>
<P>to lead effectively, continuely and largely despite ICANN's dis-inclusionary
attitude in our direction</P>
<P>historically. <BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Nov 13, 2009 1:38 PM <BR>To: Accountability
Headquarters <GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: RE: [ga] Registrants <BR><BR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>I think the point of the registrants is made clear here. Had or in the
future the registrants banded together as the driving and focal point of the
consumer we could have balanced the scales. No group is in a better
position to influence and guide the consumer. No group if organized could
have a larger more broad based impact.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But as is just as historical as Karl's account is the account of the
infighting and lack of leadership among the registrants. It is a tale filled
with self promotion and total lack of altruism. No matter how we point
the fingers at ICANN and the USG it is the failure of the registrants that has
allowed the status we now own. In my lifetime we have seen atrocities
committed and horrible violence because good women have stood by and done
nothing. But nowhere have I seen such refusal to act based completely on
the lack of desire to do what is right as opposed to self interest. It is truly
epic. It is on par with the greed revealed so well in the financial crisis and
mortgage debacle of today.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 11/12/09,
<SPAN><SPAN>Gomes</SPAN></SPAN>, Chuck <I><cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B>
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Gomes, Chuck
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: RE: [ga] Registrants<BR>To:
karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:52
PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail><BR>One correction below Karl and one
comment.<BR><BR>Chuck <BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <BR>>
[mailto:<A
href="http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>] On Behalf
Of Karl Auerbach<BR>> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:00 PM<BR>> To:
<A href="http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>> Subject: Re:
[ga] Registrants<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 11/11/2009 12:31 PM, Roberto
Gaetano wrote:<BR>> <BR>> > Actually, the fees for domain names were
introduced in 1995 <BR>> by NetSol, <BR>> > the then monopoly
Registry/Registrar, well before ICANN.<BR>> > For the record, in 1995
registrants were paying $50 for a <BR>> domain name <BR>> > under
.com, 30% of which of tax. The tax was later lifted, <BR>> but the $35
<BR>> > remained until ICANN introduced the separation between registry
and <BR>> > registrar that made the prices drop.<BR>> <BR>> Not to
put too fine a point on it, but that was not what <BR>> caused the prices to
drop, nor has ICANN allowed prices to <BR>> drop to a level commensurate
with what was expected of the <BR>> registry-registrar model.<BR>>
<BR>> Originally, when SRI ran the domain name registry, names were
free.<BR>> <BR>> Then along came Network Solutions and the Cooperative
Agreement.<BR>> <BR>> Under the old cooperative agreement, once charging
was <BR>> allowed at all, the price was fixed by the US Gov't at $50
<BR>> with $15 going to the gov't as a net-users tax.<BR>> <BR>> That
$15 tax was declared unlawful and abandoned, leaving $35 <BR>> per
name.<BR>> <BR>> The Cooperative Agreement was to have ended in 1997 or
1998 (I forget<BR>> which) with Network Solutions/Verisign handing
everything <BR>> back to the Gov't.<BR><BR>Chuck: The normal procedure at
the end of cooperative agreements with<BR>NSF was for NSF to back away and let
the contractor continue its<BR>services. There was nothing in the
cooperative agreement that I am<BR>aware of that called for "handing everything
back to the government".<BR>The administration at the time decided not to
follow the normal<BR>procedure for reasons well known.<BR><BR><BR>> <BR>>
Obviously that never happened.<BR>> <BR>> Because of the unexpected
growth of the net the USG was <BR>> poised to get stuck with some cost
overruns and the US Gov't <BR>> couldn't act fast enough (the USG takes
years to do things) <BR>> to find its way out of the developing
mess.<BR>> <BR>> So, as a matter of expediency, the Cooperative Agreement
was <BR>> amended and extended several times to become the umbrella for
<BR>> all things ICANN and Verisign.<BR>> <BR>> As part of this the US
Gov't caused ICANN to be created by <BR>> the law firm of Jones Day (a firm
that still continues to <BR>> this day to be one of ICANN's largest
creditors and which <BR>> still maintains considerable presence inside of
ICANN.)<BR>> <BR>> ICANN did not change the game of prices.<BR>>
<BR>> Rather it was the US Gov't that removed the price term, <BR>>
leaving the price to float whether there is <BR>> registrar/registry
separation or not.<BR>> <BR>> In other words neither ICANN not the
registry-registrar model <BR>> can take the credit for the price
drop.<BR><BR>Not sure I agree with you here. At the registrar level,
market forces<BR>were allowed to operate and they did.<BR><BR>> <BR>> The
Cooperative Agreement games were documented in great <BR>> depth in the
Rony's book<BR>> <A
href="http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Handbook-Stakes-Strategies-Cybers";
target=_blank>http://www.amazon.com/Domain-Handbook-Stakes-Strategies-Cybers</A><BR>>
pace/dp/0879305150/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258055878&sr=8-1<BR>>
<BR>> But ICANN can take a bow and claim credit for the price not <BR>>
dropping as far as it could have dropped:<BR>> <BR>> After the Gov't
decreed price was eliminated ICANN <BR>> inserted-back two fixed-price
components: the registry fee (a <BR>> fee based on nothing more substantial
than warm air and hand <BR>> waiving) and the ICANN tax. The impact of
these forms in <BR>> many cases the largest part of the overall domain name
cost <BR>> to consumers.<BR>> <BR>> If ICANN were to allow the
registry fee component to reflect <BR>> actual registry costs, internet
users would save the larger <BR>> part of a $1,000,000,000 USD per year in
excessive domain name fees.<BR>> <BR>>
--karl--<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey
A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders
strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR>
Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not
with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore
Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827<BR></ZZZBODY></ZZZBODY></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|