ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comment about Renewal and Updates of .TEL Registry Agreement

  • To: comments-tel-renewal-04aug16@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comment about Renewal and Updates of .TEL Registry Agreement
  • From: gauthier rigaud <gauthier.rigaud@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 13:06:48 +0200

*To whom may be concerned under the public consultation organized by ICANN
for dot TEL REGISTRY new Agreement *,
closing 13th of September 2016, at 23.59.

As a long time TEL user and Developper, I do still have some dot TELs
although of reduced number from years ago when REGISTRY was still properly
taking care of the technology development and positively supporting the
community, and some of such TELs are still developped TEL sites supporting
TELs potential niche of
applications .
  One should however reckon there had been a lot of misunderstandings at
user level, about the so called dot TEL "domain names", although is has
been visionnary minted and authorised with ICANN support, as an incumbant
first level gTLD build from the rich alloy of a catchy gTLD extension
spontaneously associated with TELecommunications and TELephones , and a
unique method for hosting data available from the Internet infrastructure
itself, called Data in the DNS , offering compulsory build-in hosting while
bringing lots of
opportunities for further services in digital TELecommunication era.

Indeed, with enough smart elegance and also good hype, dot TEL has been
promoted in its early days as a disrupting technology bringing Convergence
of Computer and Telephony into the hands of any Mister Joe in the world ,
as easy as 1-2-3 through just buying a domain name, which has then seen
many  "domainers" enter into high speculation over a new era to come.

Internet Domainers invested a lot of money in buying lots of .TEL domains,
lured by the hot new promises of CTI usage finally distributed to the
masses at any street corner as simple as a web domain name, but
misunderstanding special aspect of data hosting attached to .TEL, which did
condition its usage and business models in comparison of trading of regular
other domain names.
REGISTRY on its side made quite good work initially to promote the Data in
DNS technology and its potential applications with building up some inital
community (refering to Henri Asseily 's period) , and making the .TEL
"combined product" available at distribution level through REGISTRARs, with
registrations rocketing quite fast compared to launch of other new domain
extensions years later.

However, REGISTRARs, developping their day to day business through
additionnal hosted hardware and software services in addition to
registration of domain names, became less and less interested to push a
special technical
product (a .TEL domain name but with DDNS hosting attached) which was
including such a special method of hosting data, a disgression somehow
competing with their new business line upscaling ,and their pricing models
for hosted services and other miscellaneous adds-on.

REGISTRY started negative era reducing internal team and support, having
therefore hard times with community of users who was also as disappointed
as TELNIC's initial stockholders.
REGISTRY started to ignore and contempt the community of users, which
pushed community in return to flame the REGISTRY in return,etc, .... as you
can still see in previous posts.

TELNIC as a REGISTRY did however launch at this period, too rare but good
technical initiatives extracted from their roadmap , as to the distribution
under TELNAMES entity, of special advanced templates for dot TELs
hereinafter called Telnames templates.... although initiative was badly
positionned on the sales side (with known
results) because again superbely contempting and bypassing REGISTRARs who
therefore did not leverage to any success the Telnames ventures !

This was THE (low hanging) solution for .TEL revival , but was again
progressively a wreckage because the REGISTRY did not build momentum
through stakeholders, and built its own sales approach without looking
enough for ways to involve the communities and REGISTRARS ,and cooperate
with them all and not work against/independantly from them, who ever they

*Distribution of such Telnames business model under whitelabel was trialled
lately by the REGISTRY *, but unfortunately too late on the market although
it could have been built from the start with enough respect , interest and
involvement of stakeholders from the beginninng (REGISTRARS, third
parties/tech developpers, etc).

*So at this point of tracing back track records based on facts, not
opinions,  what could still be usefully recommended based on this
experience over .TEL,  to ICANN ?*


 *IMHO, evolution of intented Agreement contract for any new REGISTRY
(incumbant one or new one)  to successfully newly contribute to the dot TEL
future, should take into accounts the followings* :
-continue to allow continued REGISTRY services for the dot TEL extension ,
but facilitating closer cooperation with stakeholders including REGISTRARS,
user communities, and third parties involved in TELecommunications

-obtain from new REGISTRY to be, who ever he is, to put on ICANN table a
plan to rebuild the community of users, involve them,  build and support a
minimum number of initiatives, possibly under control of ICANN

-ICANN should indeed closely monitor in return the quality of community
management from the REGISTRY, because of the very specific and highly
technological nature of data-in-the-DNS hosting, and make sure that the
community is duly represented, regularly consulted by the REGISTRY, and
supported to some extend in its directions , by the REGISTRY (there are
numerous models of such positive community management, no need for the
REGISTRY to reinvent, just apply what works)

-ICANN may regularly invite authoritative institutional third parties from
CTI , Telecom,  and GSM field  (for example, IETF, but also ITU, and GSM
Association, etc ) onto workshops to be jointly organized with the
REGISTRY , about data-in-the-DNS application,  organize international
academic contests,etc, involve community at such workshop,  to push for the
best evolution of DDNS technology and its application  , for further
symbiosis growth of .TEL  gTld which is initially based on DDNS,

-in order to benefit from past experience in .TEL REGISTRY phase 1, and
avoid that same moves would produce same results, allow under financial
pricing conditions at REGISTRARs, to somehow OPEN the data hosting
scheme allowed for .TEL as typically per following , through incentives and
premium to leverage adoption and support from REGISTRARs although DDNS
hosting plan could remain THE MAIN HOSTING method for classic
incumbant dot TEL domains.

Additionnal offering of alternatives method for hosting content attached to
a .TEL domain name should consider the following approach as a whole :
  -i)assume pro Tel pricing one year, with DDNS hosting and standard CTH
panel management as already in place offerd by TELNIC, is valued at some
reference price "P" as the reference value for  REGISTRAR 's selling price
per year to endusers (registrants),
  - ii)REGISTRY has to offer to REGISTRARS within the new contract from
ICANN, at least 3 models of templates of so called TELNAMES templates type
(not exactly the same, but of such type, except if TELNIC is the new
REGISTRY again, therefore TELNIC can offer these TELNAMES templates models
easily) with different pricing to REGISTRARS according to hosting options
of these templates decided by the REGISTRANT during
registration process:
             -if hosted one year by REGISTRY,  enduser reference price for
selling could be 1.5 xP ,
            -  if a template model authorised by REGISTRY, BUT hosted by
REGISTRAR at REGISTRAR 's side, reference selling price  one year to
enduser should be not below value of 2xP per year
   - iii) if user wants to get its .TEL domain name to be ALLOWED by
REGISTRAR, under easy monitoring of REGISTRY,  to use third party hosting
capability for allocating content (therefore allowing that hosting scheme
of DATA-in-the-DNS not to be mandatory in this case) , THEN end user
reference price for one year hosting should be offered by REGISTRARS no
lower than 5xP for one year per dot TEL domain name. This would entitle
REGISTRARS to also sell owned hosting services to registrants
  - iv)if user wants to benefit from one REGISTRAR from a template
referenced at REGISTRY's side and hosted from another REGISTRAR, it is
technically possible, and priced 2.5 x P ,with 1.5 P collected from end
user price by registering REGISTRAR N1, and 1xP paid to REGISTRAR N2  or to
THIRD PARTIES supplying  the templates selected by the end user (in such
later case, hosted by REGISTRY under share revenue).

-*therefore please DO NOT SIMPLY allow REGISTRY to enable alternative
content hosting other than DDNS (by opening the "A" field)*, *WITHOUT ANY
CONDITIONS /PRICE PREMIUM at REGISTRARS level *,* otherwise this will kill
usage and possibility of maintaining upgrades of Data-in-the-DNS technology
*and transform for ever .TEL gTld into a more standard TLD like other
extension, for example a .MOBI , instead of being an Infrastructure
Services with specific features, globally identified through domain names
with .TEL extension . Solution for sustainability of the REGISTRY is
certainly in the Telnames templates distribution and other white latel
services to help REGISTRAR provide fair services duly

- in addition , when validated white label tools for pro TELs (standard
DDNS managed by REGISTRY through current CTH panel) are made available
(typically by developpers, by the community)  and can enrich management of
pro tel under DDNS hosting ,* then REGISTRY has to demonstrate best efforts
to promote towards REGISTRARS *,  the adoption of such tools for REGISTRARS
to consider integration as white label under their own offering

- also, when white label advanced templates (typically like Telnames type,
see above) are available AND made compatible with template hosting at
REGISTRARS , then such third party template have to be suggested to
REGISTRARS by REGISTRY, in order to build a marketplace of templates
compatible with DDNS hosting monitored by REGISTRY.

-under this special agreement, ICANN should therefore collect fees at
various level depending of hosting scheme attached to a .TEL at
Registration or at Renewal stage, to refund its support activities, and
technical efforts
towards the REGISTRY and towards  DDNS technology as a part of Internet
protocol usage , its support and dissemination of DDNS application
and contribution to regular upgrades of DDNS ,  *which are all instrumental
to the long term success of the .TEL gTld , and CANNOT be supported by the
REGISTRY alone (or left in the only hands of the REGISTRY)*

- all this is certainly possible as .TEL is not a simple new gTLD , but an
incumbant top level gTLD, with special features (DDNS, *possibly a new
commons in the future of internet , for applications in the fiedl of IoT,of
*public,half public & private keys distribution within a world of
blockchains, for openID and digital/mobile ID self ownership , for
convergence of Mobile Communications and Mobile data access under GSM 3G/4G
at worldwide **level typîcally in developping countries , also for proximal
technology & services towards Physical Web in developped countries* ).....
which all claims for a SPECIAL contract for .TEL REGISTRY Agreement,
compared to  "new TLDs" agreement , now standardized

- as TELNIC is in place for still several months ahead in commands of .TEL
REGISTRY management, there should be no difficulties for TELNIC to give
practical evidence in the upcoming months, of its capability to
transform their existing model & late practice , capitalizing their
experience as a pioneer for such infrastructure servcies, into the new
intended one, or for any new entrant to equally candidate for the renewal
with a clearer picture of how to make the .TEL REGISTRY a long term
successful one.

*May this be contributive in some ways to ICANN continuous work on
developping TLD usage, adoption, management , and resolution, even for a
specific one like dot TEL relying on infrastructure services delivered
anytime anywhere and packed through a domain name*, which has to involve a
little bit more the support from stakeholders including REGISTRARS, and
possibly benefitting from more support from ICANN, compared to regular pure
vanilla domain names (new Tlds) which REGISTRY management has become a
stabilized standard in recent years.

Gauthier RIGAUD

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy