Il 14/04/2021 21:57 Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
The cost of providing service is less than $0.10
I propose to sell names of 9 characters or more for $0.10, increasing by a factor of 10x for each character less than 9.
So @a is $10 million, @alice is $1,000, @bob is $100,000 and so on. (or would be only @alice and @bob are reserved names for examples.) The best names tend to be shorter names and so the cost would be quite a bit higher but that is just making sure that we don't leave too much money on the table while giving people incentive to market Mesh names (and thus the Mesh).
Yes, this does leave money on the table but I reckon that there Mesh foundation needs an income of about $10 million /year to do what I want it to achieve. Running the registry should cost less than a million. The rest will go to funding open source specs and reference code, funding conferences, etc. etc.
And the IETF. I mean, the IETF, through several indirection layers, gets a big chunk of its funding from the fact that ISOC runs .org. If this dries up in favour of your foundation, I'm sure that you will be willing to pick up the sponsorship of the IETF - and also of all other events and organizations that currently get sponsored by a gTLD registry.
But wait, there's more: in many countries, ccTLD registries are a significant source of funding for all sorts of national Internet projects - research, localization of technology, education, events, industry standardization, governance discussions, content policy enforcement, you name it. You would of course need to spread your funds evenly throughout the planet.
No, as they put it in the Godfather, I am not a communist. The not for profit registry is separate from my for-profit Mesh Service Provider and apps businesses.
The tricky part here will be to make sure that certain names with valid IPR claims end up in the right place. Obviously, @microsoft, @apple, @cisco etc. have to go to the right place or there is a security issue. But again, read the draft.
Well, it took seven years for ICANN to decide whether ".amazon" should go to Amazon the company or to Amazon the geographic region as represented by ACTO ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Cooperation_Treaty_Organization) and by the sovereign countries that formed it, and even after the decision was taken, the concerns and the complaints have not ended yet. Perhaps you can come up with a better, more fair solution that will not create international tensions and will not just award politically, socially or religiously relevant names to those that show up with the biggest pile of money (speaking of diversity and inclusiveness...). However, your draft seems silent on this kind of problems, which are also part of the reason why domain names have a price way higher than their operational cost.
I do not necessarily disagree with your idea, but it looks to me that you are underestimating its non-technical impact if it ever succeded - or, if you prefer, the amount of pushback against implementation for non-technical reasons.
--
Vittorio Bertola | Head of Policy & Innovation, Open-Xchange
vittorio.bertola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy
