 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Donate
a PC
and we'll do
the rest.
|
|
|
 |
Providing
free unlimited email connectivity to remote rural
communities! |
|
 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
dotPH RESPONSE
TO THE PETITION FOR REDELEGATION
03/27/2001
We feel that any move to redelegate control of the PH Domain
to a new non-profit entity, PHNIC, is a step backwards and
will retard the growth of PH as a domain. While the concept of
stakeholder consultation is a correct one, we feel that there
are better ways to achieve this, without handicapping PH's
ability to compete against COM and the 7 new gTLDs.
The Competitive Environment
In the last 12 months. NSI (Network Solutions) was purchased
for $21 Billion, and 7 new gTLDs (biz, pro, nom, etc.) were
created by ICANN. Some of these gTLDs have a war chest in
excess of $70M, and their business plans indicate that they
are even willing to accumulate losses for the next 4 years,
while they build support for their domain.
In such a competitive environment, it is hard to imagine how a
non-profit entity can possibly survive. In countries like
India, the local ccTLD (IN) is practically dead. (there are
264 COM domains for every 1 IN domain). In Singapore, there
are 4 COM domains for every 1 SG domain. Even Canada (CA),
which used to give its domain names for FREE, there are 7.8
COM domains for every 1 CA domain. (The Philippines, in
comparison, has a 1:1 ratio) . Clearly price is not as much an
issue as is speed, ease of registration, and quality of
service. We believe that these needs are best met by a
for-profit Registry. There are more registrations at the
$35/year price than there were at P900 for a lifetime domain -
the difference has been increased automation and the higher
level of service that we have been able to provide with the
increase in price.
In the end, we believe that Administrator of the PH Domain,
whether it be DotPH or PHNIC, has a duty to the community to
provide a Registry Service. The question is - what is the best
way for the Administrator to deliver QUALITY Domain Name
Service to the public at the BEST possible value? We believe
that a for-profit company is the only way to go.
Consultation vs. Regulation
The concept of consultation is a proper one and as such is
enshrined in ICANN's Best Practices Draft. However, a clear
line must be drawn differentiating between consultation and
regulation.
Regulation will severely hamper efforts to compete in the
domain market, especially if the other domains (.com, the 7
new TLDs, .TV, etc.) are not subject to the same restrictions.
A level playing field is important if we are to promote the
use of the PH domain. It is essential to maintain the freedom
of the registry administrator to respond to the needs of the
community in a fast-paced, ever-changing market.
The Case for Redelegation
There have been several previous attempts at redelegation. All
of them failed due to lack of merit. Nothing from this latest
attempt indicates that the result will be any different this
time around. As the petition itself states (quoting an ICANN
document):
"Concerns about 'rights' and 'ownership' are
inappropriate. It is appropriate, however, to be
concerned about 'responsibilities' and 'service' to
the community."
So the issue is neither 'rights' nor 'ownership', but whether
the domain has been administered in accordance with the
mandate from ICANN to:
1) Ensure the stability of the DNS
2) Provide registration policies that are equitable to all
groups
3) Manage the DNS with technical competence
From the results of the ITECC meeting last March 20, it is
clear that DotPH has performed its registry functions in a
competent manner and that there is no basis for redelegation.
That being said, it is important to explore other alternatives
in the hope of coming to an equitable solution prior to
resorting to redelegation proceedings. A long and drawn-out
battle for redelegation is contrary to the interests of all
concerned -- the local community, the registry, holders of PH
domains and even the Domain Name System. The domain itself
will also suffer as the ensuing instability will cause those
interested in getting PH domains to seek out other, less
controversial alternatives.
The Policy Board
DotPH has always been willing to support the establishment of
a Board that will assist in determining policy directions for
the domain. (Joel Disini, DotPH CEO, himself initiated the
formation of such a Board as far back as June of 2000. The
initiative died a natural death due to lack of interest from
other parties. These efforts to establish such a Board are
documented in www.yahoogroups.com, on the list "dotph-policy".)
However, it must be clear that the Board:
1) Be a consultative body, not a regulatory one;
2) Accurately represent stakeholders from the local
community;
3) Be held accountable for their actions and the effect of
these actions on the domain and those who hold PH domains.
With these principles in mind, we look forward to the speedy
and equitable resolution of this matter to the benefit of all
parties concerned.
(1)
Published on the ICANN Website (www.icann.org)
(2) Figures courtesy of Network Solutions and Net Wizards
[ Back
]
|
|
|
|
