[ncdnhc-discuss] One suggestion for .ORG TF participant!

Sun Apr 28 03:24:41 CEST 2002

James,

maybe a better turn for this discussion would be to focus it on building a
proposal for how better to do the RFP and the selection of a .org
operator. To begin with, it would be helpful to clearly delineate the
concerns, and a way to approach each of them.

It seems that your experience, applicable here, coincides with what
emerges as one of your main concerns, ie avoid anticompetitive and
consumer-harming behaviour. Could you help us out with integral proposals
that go the way Kent correctly points to, ie the details?

I hope taking this route reduces the fury and channels the debate to an
outcome that can influence decisions. I would also see it as due
preparation for the constituency to be able to comment on the RFP or any
other documents as they go out for public discussion.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, James Love wrote:

> Kent,
>
> I would like the ICANN staff to spell out the details that would satisfy its
> legitimate concerns regarding the quality control issue, and offer something
> that would work, within the context of the NC proposal.   I have expressed
> flexibility on this, including the notion that the ICANN staff could even
> select the actual operator itself, wholly apart from the process of
> selecting the non-profit (although I don't think this is the only or
> necessarily the best way to do this, but it isn't out of the question
> either).
>
> The NC report is a DNSO requirement that the bid go to a non-profit
> organization.   The ICANN staff has concerns about the qualifications of
> operators.  (some) Domain name holders have concerns over the
> anticompetitive characteristics of the bidding process.   I think each and
> ever one of these concerns can be addressed, or just as likely, only some
> will be addressed.
>
> I have always assumed that you and Dave have in the past sought to protect
> the domain name owners from monopolistic practices by registries, such as
> netsol, and I appreciate this, as a domain name holder.  I would like the
> .org bid to be designed to protect the .org domain holders from abusive
> practices by the next registry.  The non-profits are not going to run the
> registry themselves, they will pick an operator.  The question is, will the
> operator really be controlling the non-profit, because it funded the cost of
> submitting the bid?   Will the non-profit have much bargaining power with
> the operator, if it negotiates before the 1st round award is made?  I don't
> think the non-profit will have any real bagaining power in the current
> staff/board proposal, and I think this hurts me, as a .org domain name
> holder.
>
> Iif the ICANN staff won't help flesh out a plan that will work, and just
> keeps complaining about my proposals, we will end up with something that
> looks a lot like what happened in the new TLD round, but with more cynicism
> among the bidders.    I am a weak party in these discussions.   You guys
> have all the cards.
>
> Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent at songbird.com>
> To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 9:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] One suggestion for .ORG TF participant!
>
>
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:15:21PM -0400, James Love wrote:
> > > Ok Kent.  Fine.  Require the non-profits to put up $35 thousand dollars
> to
> > > entry the .org lottery, knowing that this will be a beauty contest,
> decided
> > > by the board. Then be real suprised when nearly ever bid is some deal
> > > where an operator is putting up the money, that the .org domain holders
> > > don't benefit from real cometition among operators.....  And give it to
> the
> > > non-profit with the most friends on the board, or whatever....     You
> guys
> > > have the votes, you have the staff, etc...... do what you want.
> > > Jamie
> >
> > I'm sorry, but that's a bit "over the top" -- you must be responding to
> > some inner demon.
> >
> > The fact is that the idea of separating the operator and sponsor bids
> > has been around for a very long time.  It (and multiple variations) was
> > proposed before the terms "operator" and "sponsor" were in vogue, before
> > there even was an ICANN.  It's possibly a good idea, but like almost all
> > these ideas, there are very complex pros and cons.
> >
> > My note was simply to point out some of those.  I could just as easily
> > argue your side of the case -- in fact, if someone had the patience they
> > could probably dig through old list archives and find places where I
> > *have* argued your side.  At this point I'm completely neutral --
> > whether it is a good idea or not really seems to me to depend on
> > details, facts, and probabilities that are not known, and may not be
> > knowable.
> >
> > To summarize: this really is an area where "the devil is in the
> > details".  To be useful, the discussion must deal with details.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > Technical Support Manager, ICANN            lonesome."
> > crispin at icann.org,kent at songbird.com                    -- Mark Twain
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>