Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: cgrady
Date/Time: Wed, March 14, 2001 at 3:00 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows NT 4.0
Score: 5
Subject: You are severely misinformed !



I truly tried to respect your point of view until you said "Mr. Auerbach sound like the whiney second grader who wants only to be at the head of the lunch line." Mr. Auerbach was publicly elected by us and is a respected member of the Internet community.

It pains me to respond to a person, much less someone touting to be an "investor" that spells Internet as "ineternet" and capitalization as "capitzlation"

Your comments and my responses:
* "As I read the political banter on this site"

I see no "banter" on this web site. I see angry people who have paid "$35/year for a protectable piece of ineternet real estate" as you called it, who are extremely angry over having that "protectible piece of ineternet real estate" in danger of being unjustly taken away from them.

* "I fear that the cries of a manic few will deter swift and necessary action on the part of ICANN"

"manic few"? At first I thought you were referring to yourself. The overwhelming majority of people on these bboards have been pleading for ICANN reform for years now.

* "admittedly a large holding in our fund complex"

Thus the SOLE reason for your posting and the reasoning behind your biased position ... money in YOUR pocket.

* " Our "best case" scenario was a delay in implementing the prior agreement such that most of the Registrar competition would go bankrupt, forcing ICANN to crawl back to Verisign with a sweetheart deal. "
Verisign has a virtual monopoly in the encryption market. Do you also want them allow NSI to regain a monopoly in the domain name market again (it is already a cartel). Without encryption keys and domain names doing business on the web is impossible. You want to give Verisign MORE power?

* "Registrar competition would go bankrupt, forcing ICANN to crawl back to Verisign with a sweetheart deal."

To the best of my knowledge I have yet to see or hear of a single registrar going bankrupt. On the contrary Network Solutions has lost the majority of its customers mainly due to bad customer service.

* "Under the current market conditions, one would have to bet that most competing registrars are in serious trouble"

There is not one shred of evidence to support this.

* "In this investor's opinion, it is a reasonable and pragmatic compromise."

Ye$, I can $ee why your own "invistor's opinion" $eem$ rea$onable and pragmatic to you.

"$35/year for a protectable piece of ineternet real estate is a great deal for the buyer."

You apparently don't seem to realize that the majority of the world is so poor and under developed that 50% of the world's population has never made a phone call. $35 bucks per year is not much to most of the posters on the bboard but have you heard of the digital divide? Reasoning such as this is EXACTLY why the digital divide exists.

Apparently Chip, there is no such thing as a "protectable piece of the [Internet]" as .ORG is in danger of being taken away from millions of people who have owned .ORG domain names for years.

For your information, you never own a domain name, therefor it cannot be protected … we are all "leasing" domain names INDEFINITELY via a yearly fee. It's a dream business model for any company. You keep your customers happy and you have a product that never runs out, never needs to be re-stocked, doesn't take up space (except a few characters in a database), and doesn't need to be shipped. What could be easier? To boot it's runs on software that is freely available (BIND) to the Internet community. Not every single person needs to make a buck with every stroke of the keyboard.

* ", sports an anemic market capitzlation of $240 million."

$240 million is anemic? Do you realize that what does can be accomplished by a handful of talented developers? It's not easy to do but it really isn't rocket science either … really.

"$35/year for a protectable piece of ineternet real estate is a great deal for the buyer" … "Most serious buyers of domain names would gladly pay $100/year or more."

Again … have you heard of the digital divide? Furthermore the digital divide translated into 3rd world reality is a digital light year.

* "Personally, I believe ICANN is so conerned with how the public might view" …

Anyone who has followed ICANN for any length of time knows that ICANN could care less about the publics view of them"

* "If it ain't broke, why are we so terribly concerned about fixing it?"

You are definitely in the minority with that statement. There are plenty of things currently "broke" Please ready previous forum threads.

* "So we have the proprosed deal. Not best for either party. Not best for internet users. But acceptable. "

What kind of logic is this? … An acceptable deal being one that is not best for either party?

It certainly seems like a great deal for "Louis Touton" who left a partnership position at Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.

Thus Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue represents ICANN and it has, and continues to receive, a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN. They certainly DO benefit.

Board members of the DNSO, a supporting organization to ICANN have certainly benefited. After all, some board members of the DNSO were also on the board of organizations that submitted applications to ICANN for new top level domains. Any they were awarded TLDs. Those people benefited.


* "The internet world already has enough uncertainty to deal with."

The only uncertainty is from an investor's point of view. The people dealing with core Internet technology have no doubts about the role that the Internet will play in the course of human history from this point forward. Only the gold rushers are uncertain.

* "You folks at ICANN are in charge. Please act like it."

I can only hope Mr. Auerbach and the other publicly elected officials do just that"

So you see Chip, you are severely misinformed.

I've been living, breathing, and eating Internet technology for about a decade now. In those 10 years I never invested in or worked for a .COM company. Why? Because I, like many others who understand Internet technology, saw "investors" such as yourself throwing other peoples money at stupid Internet ideas with no sustainable business model and sporting technology that could be implemented by a competent developer in about a week.

Everybody ignored the signs. They invested with the hopes of making money on paper and not on sustainable business models that generated REAL cash. In some cases the business models that made REAL cash were overlooked because it couldn’t go IPO fast enough to make money on paper.

It was the world's biggest poker game. The investment community has nobody to blame but itself. So don't come crying to us about " Karl Auerbach sounding like a like the whiney second grader who wants only to be at the head of the lunch line", because you have only projected your own view of yourself.

Chris Grady


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy