ABOUT COMPETITION: ....You (the ICANN Board) extended a hand to the "smaller operators"
a few years ago by inviting Register.com and CORE registrars the chance to become
testbed registrars to compete with NSI.....Did these companies have the money IOD
does (2Mil, plus an option for 6Mil on approval) now or the expertise (stable registry-4+
years)..I remember they were complaining at the high costs($100 K) http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_111241,00.html
(Comments
from CORE on the testbed process--2 yrs ago)
>>>"Stubbs said one of the most problematic
elements of the contract is the requirement that registrars take out a $100,000 insurance
policy payable to NSI.
Stubbs said CORE has encountered problems with securing
a performance bond, because they are normally assigned to large corporations and
not non-profits such as CORE.
He said CORE is lining up $100,000 in cash to satisfy
NSI's requirement. But he said the Department of Commerce, which negotiated the contract
on behalf of registrars, needs to go back to the table if the process is going to
work.
We have confidence that the Commerce Department and the people responsible
for oversight will make the necessary changes in order to make the contractual relationship
more equitable for non-testbed registrars. If they don't do the right thing, the
registrars in the future will be nobody but the AT&Ts, AOLs and big companies. "The
little guys will be exempted from the process." <<<<<
TO THE ICANN BOARD:
Please take note of the last two sentences...It sums up why IOD must be approved....I
think it is apropos that this statement comes from a group that was little and now
is big....Funny what a difference 2 years can make!!!
Lastly, do not fall in the
the "CORE trap", where by a "consortium" group will foster competition...How can
you when you have to sign "non-compete" clauses....When maybe you have a "different"
idea, but can't express it without consensus...Frankly what the internet needs are
independent registrars, who seek to promote customer service through innovative methods...CORE
has had 2 years to show it's style of "consortium" management works (and I am curious
about the NEW CORE II proposal---more bureacracy--less efficiency and innovation)
...If
you look at the CORE record, there have been some name changes in the group, stock
fluctuations, etc...It's web page wasn't even up to date as of Oct 00 ...That says
everything!!!
Thank you...
Gregory W. Krajewski
gkrajews@mato.com