Re: ICANN's Defective Competition Guidelines, etc (was Accreditationguidelines, etc.)

[usdh@smtp1.ncal.verio.com (Steve Page)]

2/17/99

Esther,
        Aside from looking forward to whatever meeting comes about, stating
that "whatever happens after that depends a lot on the proposals and
consensus from the DNSO" is an abdication of responsibility from the
designers and the responsible parties.
        Your statement is the hypothetical equivalent of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) saying "whatever happens with regard the standards
affecting the accreditation of beef in the U.S. (Grade A, etc.) depends on
the proposals and consensus from McDonalds' suppliers and franchisees".
Esther, there is a FUNDAMENTAL conflict-of-interest being institutionalized
by this line of thinking and ICANN's actions.
        The DNSO, as it is being structured will represent, when
institutionalized *one economic system* only, and its supporters, the
NSI-Regstrar system.  As such, if *consensus* from within that system's
constituents is required to be developed from proposals coming from within
DNSO, as you say, the DNSO (& ICANN) will be rigged, from the start, to
protect the interests of those who were gifted (NSI), and their
distributors (Registrars), an institutionalized Market Structure Failure.
        Your comment above, "No details and no promises" is an accurate
summary of ICANN behavior and policy so far.  That needs to change.
Details, is what this is all about.  Nobody's asking for any promises,
except for opportunity to remedy the Market Structure Failure, and compete.
        You can begin, in preparation for the meeting, by responding, with
detailed questions and/or comments, to the highly detailed and supportable
information which I have submitted to you in previous emails, so that prior
to the meeting, some of the basics can be discussed.  To speed that up,
I've provided more information below.
        If you are truly interested in "understanding the Internet .A-.Z
Name Registry system", we can begin right here, with the short paragraphs
below, using email to ask any questions, because the system is an
intellectually based system, built upon the symbollic structure of western
languages which are limited only by the imaginations of people.
        All you needs to do now is to ask specific questions, if you have
them.  The system is a very understandable, simple system based upon a
simple method which can be explained in detail, in one paragraph (A) below:


Step 1. Analyze DNS System Need (Result: Increase Inventory of SLD.TLDs
reduces economic pressure)

A. Internet .A-.Z Name Registry Solution:
        Pick a word.   "Computer".   That word, as a categorical word, can
be an SLD, linked to a TLD that represents the first alphabetical character
of the word ("C").  Link that word (computer), to that TLD symbol (.c).
The result is "computer.c". Repeat this process, (as we've done), across
all of the single-character TLDs.(done)  Repeat the process across various
Western Languages.(done)  Compile the results into a database. (done)
Examples: drummer.d(sm), pilot.p(sm), mechanic.m(sm) etc. etc.

        This system has been promoted as a method for increasing the
SLD.TLD inventory (solves the Market Structure Failure), which will
immediately increase the supply of SLD.TLD, thereby increasing choices,
reducing speculation, and reducing trademark/domain holder pressure.(done)

Step 2. Link to Email Services
        Provide email services to consumers (people and/or companies) which
want to use the list to promote themselves using a logical email address,
instead of something like "Pat234589@aol.com"
        Esther is a drummer, a pilot, and a mechanic.  She wants to have an
email service for each.  Esther wants people to know, just by a business
card email address, that she is a drummer, mechanic, pilot.  (Esther also
has an owned "catchy email for her business, purchased from NSI, called
Edventure.com.)
        Under the .A-.Z system, Esther will be able to choose an email
address which provides her with the ability to have an email which enables
the *communication* of Esther's identity, should she choose to have an
email address that is more "personal".  The key benefit to this system is
that the SLD.TLD names are not "owned" by the user, but used by the user
(like Juno, Hotmail, etc.) There are a number of email infrastructures
which have the sort of infrastructure for handling this.  One is CommTouch.

        Examples:    There are 3 Esther Dysons who each want to have use an
email account from the inventory of SLD.TLD combinations enabled by
Internet .A-.Z Name Registry.  They each like drumming, flying planes, and
happen to be part-time mechanics.  What email options would they have from
which to choose?

Option 1: drummer.d(sm) Musically-oriented email service
edyson@drummer.d
estherd@drummer.d
estherdyson@drummer.d

Topical Email Listing (included): www.drummer.d(sm) White Page service

Option 2: www.pilot.p(sm) Aeronautically-oriented email service
edyson@pilot.p
estherd@pilot.p
estherdyson@pilot.p

Topical Email Listing (included): www.pilot.p(sm) White Page service

Option 3: www.mechanic.m(sm) Mechanically-oriented email service
edyson@mechanic.m
estherd@mechanic.m
estherdyson@mechanic.m

Topical Email Listing (included): www.mechanic.m(sm) White Page service

        If you have any questions about the system, before the meeting,
I'll be happy to answer them so that you have a complete understanding
about how this innovation solves the Market Structure Failure-related
problems facing us all.

Very, very respectfully :-)

Steve Page
Internet .A-.Z Name Registry
A competitive system for increasing the Internet's SLD.TLD inventory
T: 925-454-8624

(c) Copyright, 1999.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.






>Please don't fall over in paroxysms of disbelief, but actually I *do* like
>the notions of diversity, competition, and even competition among different
>business models as well as among different firms.  But we (ICANN Initial
>Board) can't do everything all at once, and our first task is to create a
>shared registry system for .com, org and .net.  What happens after that
>depends a lot on the proposals and consensus from the DNSO.  Hence no
>details and no promises.
>
>But yes, we are trying to build a system that is flexible enough to comprise
>the diversity and the evolution of all forms of Net life.
>
>Accordingly, I'm looking forward to meeting you in California on the 18th
>and getting a better understanding of your system.
>
>Esther Dyson
>
>
>At 05:57 PM 09/02/99 -0800, steve wrote:
>>2/9/99
>>
>>TO: Mike Roberts, President & CEO, ICANN
>>CC: Esther Dyson, Chair, and Interim Board Members
>>
>>FROM: Steve Page, Internet .A-.Z Name Registry, T: 925-454-8624
>>
>>RE: ICANN's Defective Competition guidelines, etc (was Accreditation
>>guidelines, etc.)
>>
>>Dear Mike,
>>        Thank you for your response to me emails.  I do understand the
>>differences of Board policy-making and the executive follow-through, to
>>which your first comment below is made, however deferring policy-making to
>>"the Board" and merely "following orders" to the CEO and staff seems a bit
>>disingenuous.  That actual "actor" in the process of *leading*, both the
>>policy-making and the implementation of policies...is the President/CEO.
>>If we use the Educom/Educause example, based upon the articles which I have
>>read, your are the person around whom the entire process began and
>>revolved, so although policy-making was done by a Board, it was *lead* by
>>you.  Is this a wrong parallel to use, or does this model apply to ICANN as
>>well?
>>        Having been an active member of "the community" for a number of
>>years, actively building a California-based business to bring something new
>>and innovative to the hopefully-soon-to-be "competitive" DNS.  During this
>>period, I have spent hundreds and thousands of hours in the attempt to
>>build the sort of value which creates choices for people.
>>        The choices, represented by the SLD.TLD character strings linked to
>>the single-character TLD set, are choices which never existed before I
>>began innovating, and choices which will not exist if individuals are
>>systematically and institutionally allowed to be continually stifled by the
>>Anti-Competitive Tendencies of a structurally-defective, monolithic,
>>economic value-chain called the  ICANN.
>>        It is clear that ICANN is being used as a tool of embarrassed
>>government officials to morph "the monopoly formerly known as NSI" into a
>>system somewhat resembling a competitive system (maybe to the untrained or
>>unconcerned observer), but the new system which is apparently being
>>structure to be a "competitive system" (not true), is really an economic
>>monopoly, by another name, under a grand charade and guided by an
>>unidentified force within the U.S. Government.
>>        I won't go as far as to say that the selling-out of face-to-face
>>time with the President in exchange for funds paid by foreign governments
>>and influence peddlers has co-opted the ICANN process, but it is not too
>>far of a stretch to imagine that this could be one of the forces
>>influencing the process.  I also won't go as far as to suggest that the
>>Monica Lewinsky distraction is a part of a bigger charade...to distract the
>>Congress which would otherwise be forced by historical precedent (the
>>creation of a standard currency under the Federal Reserve Act) to involve
>>itself in the creation of a standardized system for managing and
>>influencing a scarce economic resource (IP numbers) and an intellectual
>>resource (human language in the form of domain names).  I'll leave that to
>>everyone else's judgement.  ICANN is just doing its job.  Right?
>>        You wrote, below, "The accreditation guidelines assume the economic
>>structure for registries, registry-administrators and registrars that is
>>set out in the White Paper.  That's the history and the
>>>mandate we are working from."
>>        Unfortunately, somebody somewhere in the process seems to have
>>skipped the most important step in the entire episode Mike...and that step
>>is called "Competition", which is the entire purpose of this entire
>>multi-year process.  There will be *no competition*, (by anyone's
>>definition and I encourage anyone to define the lottery process as
>>competition) after the results of the accreditation and Lottery process are
>>talied.  Every participant, as it is structured now, will be re-selling one
>>product, a .COM, .NET, or .ORG domain name address, and they will be doing
>>so under the prodding of the U.S. government, which it is no stretch to
>>analogously compare to the central-controlling authority of scarce
>>agricultural or consumer products in any former communist/socialist
>>countries.
>>        The sad irony of this affair is the inability of the leaders to
>>recognize the historical mistakes which tortured a generation of humanity
>>is being recreated on a much more pervasive scale.    The Accreditation
>>Guidelines are one more step forward (another brick in the Berlin Wall?) in
>>the creation of an economic monolith which will be controlled by a system,
>>ICANN, which has no foundation of principled protections as its foundation.
>>        You also wrote: "None of the other members on this board
>>participated actively in the White Paper process and each of the members
>>has an open mind about improvements."  Where are the disclosures, as Esther
>>Dyson has put forth, regarding each and every Board member? I would like to
>>have the opportunity to recognize whether there might be conflicts of
>>interest or influential forces which will prevent their open minds from
>>taking action to eliminate the Anti-Competitive Reality of
>>institutionalizing only one monolithic economic system.  If you could
>>implement this, under the spirit of openness and transparency, it might be
>>an incremental step toward 1) creating trust, and 2) building an ICANN
>>which is strong and stable enough to allow for a variety of economic
>>models.
>>        You also wrote, "But the U.S. Government has set a number of fixed
>>points in its agreements with Network Solutions that constrain, at least in
>>the short term, how everyone is going to open .com etc to competition."
>>        Opening .com to "competition" does not create "competition, it
>>merely creates a sharing of revenue among a registry and its resellers.
>>Your use of the term "competition" is false.  Your are creating a global,
>>octopus-like electronic distribution network of "supplier-resellers"
>>relationships, and each relationship is designed to throw off a portion of
>>cash to NSI, and indirectly to ICANN.  That's one fine model to have if
>>every person in the world wants to kneel in the temple of ICANN and pay
>>alms to the latest re-incarnation of a supra-national body designed to
>>extort value from the masses, but that is not "competition".
>>        The term competition implies the invisible word...economic, which
>>further implies having a choice of products.  Like the bare storefronts of
>>pre-peristroika Moscow, or the facade-like storefronts of the former walled
>>East Berlin, they were all resellers of an innovation-free marketplace
>>which had set-up pre-arranged relationships between supplier (the State)
>>and the retailer (the Storeowner), which were merely distribution-points
>>for the centrally-planned centrally-produced, centrally-controlled
>>economies.  How is ICANN's model any different?  Neither was/is
>>competitive.
>>        In closing you wrote, "There may well be opportunities for more
>>diverse economic models of registry-registrar  services, and if you wish to
>>present one to the Board, please do so."
>>        Thank you for making the point so clearly how dangerous the
>>situation really is. ICANN is the only corporation being gifted with the
>>right to control scarce resources in Internet space (there won't be any
>>others, there's only one chance).  The dangerous word you used is "may",
>>which also implies that there "may not" be the opportunity for more diverse
>>economic models of service.  If there is not specific language used by
>>ICANN to protect the rights of individuals and entrepreneurs to provide
>>alternative models of service, then ICANN IS the reincarnation of Ronald
>>Reagan's "Evil Empire".
>>        The stifling actions and implied future capability of someone or
>>something to control the rights of others to create services which might be
>>more innovative, cheaper, or better, again, is the definition of
>>Anti-Competitive, because ICANN is "the real thing" (as has been explained
>>to me by people familiar with the issues involving the damage caused by
>>monopolistic and Anti-Competitive behavior).
>>        Please respond with as much detail as you can.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>Stephen J. Page
>>Internet.A-.Z Name Registry
>>T: 925-454-8624
>>
>>(c) Copyright, 1999.  Stephen J. Page.  All Rights Reserved.
>>
>>
>>Steve wrote:
>>>>         ICANN, not the Paris meeting, implies otherwise.  DNSO will become
>>>> a part of ICANN.  Unless the DNSO structures something proactively, up
>>>> front, then control and exclusion will happen, I think, especially based
>>>> upon the comments of Mike Roberts.  I'm waiting for more details...to see
>>>> how consistent his policies will be with his attitude..
>>>
>>>Steve - Just a couple of quick comments.
>>>
>>>- the Board sets policy, the CEO and staff carry it out. That's the
>>>basis on which I was hired, and that's how it's working.
>>>
>>>- the Board hasn't set policy on DNSO, it asked the community
>>>to submit proposals, which it is now seeing for the first time
>>>in the last couple of days.  It wants to see reaction from the
>>>community, pro and con, on the proposals, so get in there with
>>>your suggestions.
>>>
>>>- the accreditation guidelines assume the economic structure
>>>for registries, registry-administrators and registrars that
>>>is set out in the White Paper.  That's the history and the
>>>mandate we are working from.  None of the other members
>>> on this board participated
>>>actively in the White Paper process and each of the members
>>>has an open mind about improvements. But the U.S. Government
>>>has set a number of fixed points in its agreements with
>>>Network Solutions that constrain, at least in the short
>>>term, how everyone is going to open .com etc to competition.
>>>There may well be opportunities for more diverse economic
>>>models of registry-registrar  services, and if you wish to present one
>>>to the Board, please do so.
>>>
>>>- Mike Roberts
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
>chairman, EDventure Holdings
>interim chairman, Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
>edyson@edventure.com
>1 (212) 924-8800
>1 (212) 924-0240 fax
>104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
>New York, NY 10011 USA
>http://www.edventure.com
>
>PC Forum:  21 to 24 March 1999, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona
>High-Tech Forum in Europe:  24 to 26 October 1999, Budapest
>Book:  "Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age"