Re: [ga] Replacements for VeriSign registry?

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, DPF wrote:

> >When you decided to cross the lower 1 year limit, did you consider to cross 
> >the upper 10 years limit? If yes what was the rationale not to do it?
> 
> Previously there was no flexibility at all - the lower and upper limit
> was both one year.
> 
> If there was market demand for greater than ten years, I am sure the
> policy would be reconsidered.

In the case of the non-ccTLDs "the policy" never was "considered" at all, 
it was simply decreed.

As I mentioned previously, there are possible reasons why someone might 
consider having shorter or longer periods to be useful ways to 
differentiate his/her product (domain name) offerings.

The fact that there is a limitation on non-ccTLDs is indicative of how far
ICANN has abandoned *technical* matters and moved into overt regulation of
business practices that have no link to matters of technical stability of
the internet.  The recently issued ICANN rules for applicants for new TLDs
reflects the same problem - ICANN regulates only business practices and
has abandoned ensuring that the internet is actually technically operated
in a stable and safe way.

I have been constantly surprised at the attitude of business intererests
in ICANN - they, perhaps even more than the average individual, depend on
the internet providing a stable platform for the movement of packets and
accurate and timely resolution of DNS queries.  ICANN has completely
failed to deliver on that obligation, thus creating a risk of failure of
business operations and e-commerce.  One would think that they, more than
anyone, would be concerned that ICANN is playing in the pansies while the
the technical foundations of internet stability are being eroded by
internet termites.

		--karl--