Our domain

AL Alegre, a fixture in civil society circles, reminds me of a bulldog. This isn’t a reference to Al’s heft, but rather his tenacity.  Once Al sinks his teeth into an issue, he’s unlikely to let go.

One of these issues that I’ve written extensively about is the need to reform the .PH domain, a campaign that Al’s Foundation for Media Alternatives has revived.

Since 1990, the country’s top level domain has been administered by a private individual and his company, DotPH. The operation is aimed at turning a profit, and nobody in the local Internet community has a say in how the domain is run.

In practical terms, this means that an Internet domain with the .PH suffix costs three times more than a generic .COM address because the local administrator can set prices without consulting anyone. And because there can be only one administrator, local Web site owners will have no choice but to shell out $35 a year if they want a .PH domain, instead of a new .COM address for just $8.95 a year at GoDaddy.

By some accident of history, DotPH’s monopoly also means that the group that independently manages the .EDU.PH domains for Philippine schools cannot add servers to improve network reliability without the .PH administrator’s say-so—and DotPH won’t say so unless it’s paid.

The tragedy of the .PH domain is that organization that assigns country administrators, the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), has already stated specifically that the country administrator must act as a trustee for the domain, which is considered a public resource. “Concerns about ‘rights’ and ‘ownership’ of domains are inappropriate,” the ICANN says in one key document. “It is appropriate, however, to be concerned about ‘responsibilities’ and ‘service’ to the community.”

In 2001, a group of Internet users and service providers took this to heart and began lobbying the government to make the local administrator adhere more closely to the ICANN vision. The group believed the Philippine domain should be run by a non-profit foundation that had wide representation from and was ultimately answerable to the local Internet community. It also believed that to avoid any conflict of interest, the administrator of the .PH database should not also sell domain names commercially, an activity that should be opened up instead to many registrars who compete freely.

This lobbying effort went through the bureaucratic mill—passing from the Department of Trade and Industry to the National Economic and Development Authority to the Commission on Information and Communications Technology and the National Telecommunications Commission. Throughout this process, the administrator was uncooperative and truculent. During one public hearing, he sent an employee to videotape the proceedings, but did not authorize him to speak for the company.

Finally, in 2004, the reform efforts reached a milestone when the government issued guidelines stating clearly that the Philippine domain was a public resource, and that the .PH administrator, as a trustee, was accountable to the Internet community. The guidelines also called for a separation of the administrative and commercial functions. If DotPH wanted to remain the administrator, it would have to stop selling domain names.

Unfortunately, this was as far as the reforms went, and the people who were tasked to carry out the guidelines never did.

This is where Al and the Foundation for Media Alternatives come in. Three years after the government dropped the ball, the foundation is pushing and probing. What happened to the mandated reforms? Was there a secret deal to preserve the status quo? What can we do to move forward?
These are the questions that the foundation is asking.

A few months ago, a Filipino blogger based in New York e-mailed me because he was incensed about something the PH administrator said on the Yugatech blog.

“Please Mr. Wong, I will do whatever I can to help you get the .ph domain into [the hands of] a rightful organization and not into a single private individual. Mr. [Joel] Disini [the administrator,] has the gall to say that he can do anything he wants with the .ph domain and yet says that the .ph domain is the ‘official’ domain of the Philippines. It’s so sickening,” wrote Rickey Yeneza. “It’s quite obvious that he is doing a disservice to the Filipino people, so I believe we should act. It’s not a lost cause is it?”

Looking back, I realize my reply to Rickey--tempered by my disappointment at the government’s inaction--was short of enthusiastic. What I should have done was to encourage Rickey and others like him to use their blogs to press the case. Maybe it’s not too late. With a little tenacity, we ought to be able to reclaim our domain.

Interesting post. Allow me to comment:

CHIN: In practical terms, this means that an Internet domain with the .PH suffix costs three times more than a generic .COM address because the local administrator can set prices without consulting anyone.

EMIL: You’re comparing apples and oranges.  No country code domain is as cheap as .COM.  See ccTLD prices at http://www.asiaregistry.com/domains/search.html

CHIN: By some accident of history, DotPH’s monopoly also means that the group that independently manages the .EDU.PH domains for Philippine schools cannot add servers to improve network reliability without the .PH administrator’s say-so—and DotPH won’t say so unless it’s paid.

EMIL: That’s a pretty strong statement.  You’re implying that dotPH is preventing PHNET, the group that manages EDU.PH, from improving their
network’s reliability.

If that were true, ICANN would redelegate the .PH domain without the slightest hesitation.  All PHNET would have to do is show that they have
complied with the requirements and yet dotPH refuses to make the changes.

But the truth is that PHNET has not done so, despite indications that they do need to improve their network reliability.  (See
dotPH vs EDU.PH downtimes at http://monitoring.domains.ph/).  The requirements are simple and the same for anyone who requests manual modification—just pay the P1,350.00 fee. 

So if PHNET hasn’t improved network reliability, it’s definitely NOT because dotPH is keeping them from doing so.

Now if you’re saying that PHNET refuses to improve the network reliability of the entire EDU.PH domain - simply because of a one-time P1,350 fee - then that’s pretty irresponsible, and would be cause for relegating EDU.PH. Pretty ironic, given that PHNET administrators have been
attempting to get the PH top level domain redelegated (away from DotPH)for the last 14 years.

CHIN: Unfortunately, this was as far as the reforms went, and the people who were tasked to carry out the guidelines never did........What happened to the mandated reforms? Was there a secret deal to preserve the status quo?

EMIL: We already comply with the major point of the Guidelines - separating the Administrator and Registrar.  We actually considered signing the document but the one of the problems lay in super clauses that make it impossible for anyone reasonable to accept.

For example, the government has carte blanche to
modify the contract to their liking at any time and without our agreement.

It even says that any disputes will be automatically resolved in their favor! In other words, basta sila ang masusunod. And if there is a conflict between what the government says and what ICANN says, we’d have no option but to follow the government, regardless of the consequences for the DNS.

Here’s another theory, not quite as titillating as your “secret deal”—the Guidelines were not implemented because they were never meant to be. They are so one-sided that it’s an “i win-you lose” scenario that never had a chance.

It imposes an array of bureaucratic burdens without offering any protection against arbitrary action—government can redelegate if there is a “loss of support”.

So maybe redelegation was the objective from the very beginning. Craft a document that will surely be rejected and then use that as the basis for redelegation.

Or maybe they they really were out of their depth and the problem now is that CICT can’t say “Oops! We didn’t realize you already complied” without getting embarrassed.

The CICT people originally involved in this issue jumped ship long ago. Perhaps those left behind prefer the Guidelines die a natural death
rather than implement such a flawed document.

Hello Emil!  Glad to hear from you.  Just a few
points to clarify, if i may ...

>> CHIN: ... an Internet domain with the .PH
>> suffix costs three times more than a generic
>> .COM address because the local administrator
>> can set prices without consulting anyone.

> EMIL: You’re comparing apples and oranges.  No
> country code domain is as cheap as .COM.  ...

WYN:  When talking about dotPH’s “competition”,
Joel Disini often cites the .COM domains, wouldn’t
this be “comparing apples and oranges” too, as
dotPH has no competition within .PH?  Another
argument would be that there are far more .COM
domains compared to .PH.  For comparison, how many
.PH domains are currently registered?

>> CHIN: ... DotPH’s monopoly also means that the
>> group that independently manages the .EDU.PH
>> domains ... cannot add servers to improve
>> network reliability without the .PH
>> administrator’s say-so ...

> EMIL: ... All PHNET would have to do is show
> that they have complied with the requirements
> ... The requirements are simple ... just pay
> the P1,350.00 fee.

WYN:  Doesn’t this mean that dotPH still has
control over the “independent” EDU.PH domain?

> EMIL: We already comply with the major point of
> the Guidelines - separating the Administrator
> and Registrar. 

WYN:  This is good news!  Which companies now
attend to the Administrator and Registrar roles
respectively?

Hoping to hear from you,

Winthrop Yu

"EMIL: You’re comparing apples and oranges.  No country code domain is as cheap as .COM. “

I just went over to dot.tk. Yeah, they are giving away the domain names for free in exchange for ads but to actually register it ad-free is only US6.95/year. That is cheaper than the .coms and less than a quarter of what dot.ph is charging.

Emil:
> But the truth is that PHNET has not done so, >despite indications that they do need to improve >their network reliability.  (See
>dotPH vs EDU.PH downtimes at >http://monitoring.domains.ph/).

This is a misleading statement from Joel Disini.  There never was a down time of the EDU.PH DNS Service. Disini,Inc had never shown
any period of time of his own choosing (there are an infinite number of such periods to choose), when the EDU.PH DNS service was down.

Yes, some individual servers were down—some for maintenance and upgrade, some due to power problems in the AIM ACCEED (we have since moved out of that site).  However, as designed, the other servers took over the load of the DNS service.

Could we put in more servers and redundancy? Yes, we could, if we could modify our DNS records in the PH registry controlled by Disini,Inc.  We had in fact already made arrangements in the US to do this but we can’t modify our records.

However, even without these additional servers and redundancy, the EDU.PH service has never been down.

> The requirements are simple and the same for >anyone who requests manual modification—just pay >the P1,350.00 fee.

This is another misleading statement. There is no need for a manual modification. The online form should allow us to modify the EDU.PH DNS records without any payments.  This was the agreement with Dr John Postel, Dr Goldstein of the NSF, Joel Disini, and Dr Villarica.

>So if PHNET hasn’t improved network reliability, >it’s definitely NOT because dotPH is keeping them >from doing so.

What you are keeping us from doing is adding redundancy.  The payment of PhP 1,350 breaks the agreement made when Joel Disini was allowed by Dr Postel to continue to be the administrator of the PHccTLD. PHNET does not want to legitimize dotPH’s control of the PHccTLD.

—Bombim Cadiz

Emil:

It seems like most of the points you raised have been more than adequately answered in the previous posts.

Now maybe you would do me a small favor. I would like to get a categorical answer from some responsible DotPH official to one two-part question: Does the current administrator acknowledge that 1) the domain is a public resource to be managed in trust for the local Internet community; and 2) that the administrator must consult with and is answerable to the community at large before making decisions—such as pricing—that affect all stakeholders?

To my knowledge, the current administrator has never stated for the record that he agrees with either of these points. If I am wrong, this is a good time to set the record straight, and we can proceed to discuss reforms from there.

CHIN: Now maybe you would do me a small favor. I would like to get a categorical answer from some responsible DotPH official to one two-part question:…

Oh, I’m waiting for a categorical answer to this one too! But then this question has been asked before and we have waited years for an answer. Will Emil really answer? Hmmm… let me build a house first and then I’ll check. Will I find any real answer?

What really amazes me is how DotPH thinks it can continue to recycle the same lies and misleading answers over and over again without getting caught. This is just a repeat of the same comedy. Don’t the DotPH PR types get tired of getting egg all over their faces time and again?

SABI NI SUPER: >> I just went over to dot.tk. Yeah, they are giving away the domain names for
free in exchange for ads but to actually register it ad-free is only
US6.95/year. That is cheaper than the .coms and less than a quarter of what
dot.ph is charging.

EMIL: For every ccTLD selling a domain at that price, there are easily 20 others selling a domain at $30/yr or more. And besides, .TK sells some domains at a low cost but trademarks and “special domains” (including super.tk) cost at least $2,500/yr. Not much of a bargain, eh?

Glad to oblige, Chin.

>>Does the current administrator acknowledge that 1) the domain is a public resource to be managed in trust for the local Internet community;

It’s a resource administered for the local and GLOBAL Internet Community, under the authority vested by IANA. (not the authority vested by the CICT or its Guidelines).

>> 2) that the administrator must consult with and is answerable to the community at large before making decisions—such as pricing—that affect all stakeholders?

It depends what you mean by consultation. If you mean we must have some kind of bureaucracy that can veto new services, marketing promotions, pricing etc - then certainly the answer is NO. If you define consultation as listening to nameholders and creating new products, improving service and adjusting prices in response - then definitely YES.  We compete with COM in the Philippine market in every sense of the word, so it’s in our interest to consult as often as we can.

Chin: Does the current administrator acknowledge that 1) the domain is a public resource to be managed in trust for the local Internet community;

Emil: It’s a resource administered for the local and GLOBAL Internet Community, under the authority vested by IANA. (not the authority vested by the CICT or its Guidelines).

Chin: Gee Emil, is it really hard to say “YES”? And I noticed you left out the word “public” before resource. Do you mean the administrator sees it as a PRIVATE resource to be owned by one person or company?

You were quicker to say NO to the second question. If we followed your concept of consultation, officials would just take office before they waited to be voted in.

Nice talking, Emil, but your answers tell me the real answer, as far as the administrator is concerned, is 1) NO, and 2) NO. Why not cut to the chase?

> The requirements are simple and the same for >anyone who requests manual modification—just pay >the P1,350.00 fee.

BOMBIM: >>This is another misleading statement. There is no need for a manual modification. The online form should allow us to modify the EDU.PH DNS records without any payments.  This was the agreement with Dr John Postel, Dr Goldstein of the NSF, Joel Disini, and Dr Villarica.

Bombim,

I wasn’t around then but Joel Disini, who was, has this to say:

“There was never any agreement between Dr. Goldstein, myself, and Dr. Villarica.
In fact, Dr Villarica’s words were ‘Either you hand us the domain gracefully, or we will take it away from you’. With statements like that, generally no agreement is possible. At that time - 1992 - there was also no concept of online forms or online payments.

What happened is that IANA and I agreed to have PHNET handle the EDU.PH and GOV.PH domains. It was implicit that the PH Nameserver would continue to service the EDU.PH domain, and that PHNET would pay for whatever costs are associated with providing that service. To date, P1,350 is the only bill that DotPH has assessed PHNET over the last 15 years.”

Hi Chin,

I posted this a coupla days ago but wasn’t sure if it didn’t go through or was disapproved. Am reposting in the event that it was the former.

++++++

Hi Wyn,

Lemme try to clarify:

>>WYN:  When talking about dotPH’s “competition”,
Joel Disini often cites the .COM domains, wouldn’t
this be “comparing apples and oranges” too, as
dotPH has no competition within .PH?

EMIL: My point is that using .COM as the benchmark is inaccurate since its much cheaper than any ccTLD.  It’d be like me saying, “Well, the .JOBS domain is $150 a year, so .PH at $35 is cheap.” It’s more accurate to compare prices across a range of ccTLDs.

WYN: >>Another
argument would be that there are far more .COM
domains compared to .PH.  For comparison, how many
.PH domains are currently registered?

EMIL: We’re a drop in the bucket, not even close to 1% of .COM.  Then again, very few ccTLDs are.

> EMIL: ... All PHNET would have to do is show
> that they have complied with the requirements
> ... The requirements are simple ... just pay
> the P1,350.00 fee.

>>WYN:  Doesn’t this mean that dotPH still has
control over the “independent” EDU.PH domain?

EMIL: Control? PHNET sets its own pricing, policies, requirements for registration and manages the database of EDU.PH domains.  If requiring payment of a simple P1,350 modification fee (just like everyone else) is how you define “control”, then I guess you’re right.

> EMIL: We already comply with the major point of
> the Guidelines - separating the Administrator
> and Registrar. 

>> WYN:  This is good news!  Which companies now
attend to the Administrator and Registrar roles
respectively?

EMIL: Actually, it isn’t news.  It’s always been PHDF and DotPH Domains.  It just seems like someone in CICT didn’t do their homework, is all.

Hope this helps.

Hi Chin,

Here’s another one I’m reposting cuz I’m not sure if it didn’t get through or was disapproved.

++++++++

>>Chin: Gee Emil, is it really hard to say “YES”? And I noticed you left out
the word “public” before resource.

EMIL: It’s hard because you’re not asking a simple Yes or No question.  It depends what you mean by “public”.

If you mean the government can arbitrarily step in and run the .PH namespace, for good or ill, then NO. But if you mean a resource that is open to the public, with minimal red tape and administered keeping in mind the interests of the local and global Internet communities—then YES, it is a public resource.

CHIN: >>Do you mean the administrator sees it
as a PRIVATE resource to be owned by one person or company?

EMIL: I didn’t say that either.  Look, the reason RFC-1591 says that “concerns about ‘rights’ and ‘ownership’ are inappropriate” is because arguing about them leads to an endless debate, one that’s moot as far as nameholders are concerned.  What they care about is “responsibilities and service”.  So it all comes down to—how has dotPH not lived up to its responsibilities and service standards? 

So yeah, let’s cut to the chase here, Chin—What makes the .PH namespace so poorly run that you would advocate something as drastic as forced redelegation?

CHIN: >>You were quicker to say NO to the second question. If we followed your
concept of consultation, officials would just take office before they waited
to be voted in.

EMIL: That’s not an accurate syllogism, Chin—though Koko might say na ganun nga ang eleksyon sa Pilipinas

My point is why create such a bureaucracy in the first place?  One only needs to look at the growth of ICANN’s budget over the past 7 years to see how these things have a way of getting way bigger than originally envisioned. For that matter, check out the history of any government agency.

Emil,

I never got your original posts.

To answer the points you raise, how hard is it to understand “public resource” in the same way airwaves, the waterways and air lanes are public resources that are owned by everyone in this country?

This is a statement of principle, not a detailed contract. When we say in the preamble of the Constitution that we want to build a just and humane society, we don’t say, well, it depends on what just and humane means? The concept of a public resource is very , very clear, and it is a sign of a lack of sensitivity that your company has never acknowledged this point.

Nobody wants a lot of red tape. On the other hand, I do not want a private entity dictating to me how a resource that I also own (it’s public, remember?) is to be used, without asking me (or my representative—that’s what we have in a democracy) FIRST. Not setting prices on its own without regard to the people who will have to pay them. I think that is simple enough.

I also think that answers your question about what is so wrong with the way the domain is being run. Emil, your company is not accountable and your previous behavior (sending a guy to the NTC hearing merely to videotape the proceedings) is an indication of arrogance, NOT consultation.

You keep warning against government bureaucracy but forget that one of the proposals on the table is a non-profit foundation, formed from representatives in the industry, such as those already in place in a number of countries.

> EMIL: Actually, it isn’t news.  It’s always been
> PHDF and DotPH Domains.  It just seems like
> someone in CICT didn’t do their homework, is all.

Hmmm… who runs PHDF, Emil? And who runs DotPH?

PH DOMAIN FOUNDATION INC. was started by Mr. Jose Emmanuel Disini (http://www.phdf.org.ph/profile.html).

And, of course, the same person runs DotPH.

So, this “separation” is really just on paper isn’t it? Both the Registry and Registrar functions are *still* controlled by Mr. Disini. Some compliance!

By the way, Emil, who owns the EC-registered companies listed below? Are they Disini’s too?

* DOTPH COMPUTER RENTALS
* DOTPHONE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SERVICES
* SMEDOTPH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CO.
* SPEEDLINK DOTPH INC.

Posted by Emil Avancena on 07/13/07 at 03:00 PM
> Hi Wyn,
>
> Lemme try to clarify:

Hi Emil,

Thanx, (for awhile there i was feeling a bit like the kid who wasn’t getting any Christmas presents .

> EMIL: My point is that using .COM as the
> benchmark is inaccurate since its much
> cheaper than any ccTLD.  It’d be like me
> saying, “Well, the .JOBS domain is $150 a
> year, so .PH at $35 is cheap.” It’s more
> accurate to compare prices across a range
> of ccTLDs.

Well yes.  There is likewise a wide range of ccTLD prices, some are cheaper than “.COM” and some are even free.  What then would be the reason behind charging higher rather than lower?  If the usual rationale (as often cited by PHDF/DotPH) is - “.COM” sells/has more domains, then that leads us to ...

> EMIL: We’re a drop in the bucket, not even
> close to 1% of .COM. 

Let’s see, 1% of “.COM’s” 60M would be about 600,000 domains, correct?  It would be better if we could work with a fixed figure.  In any case, would the revenue thereby generated be sufficient for operation of the Registrar - PHDF?  Which in turn, leads to ...

> EMIL: Actually, it isn’t news.  It’s always
> been PHDF and DotPH Domains.  ...

Without getting into any discussions about “chinese walls” , which of the 2 entities does the actual selling of domains to resellers and at what price?  On Abe’s blog, i recall Joel saying as low as $15 (for bulk/wholesale, minimum 1200 domains)?  Am assuming that the pricing (wherever it originates) is uniform
for all?

I feel that $15 is still on the high side. But, my personal opinion aside, has PHDF or dotPH considered the possiblity that there would be much greater take-up of .PH domains were the price more reasonable (for small, even single purchase quantities)?

Thanks again for helping out,

WYn

Emil said:

>I wasn’t around then but Joel Disini, who was, >has this to say:

I wasn’t around during the negotiations. However all the people who were involved—Dr Villarica, Risa Carlos, and Dr Arnie Del Rosario all point to Disini having unreasonable demands.

>“There was never any agreement between Dr. >Goldstein, myself, and Dr. Villarica.
>In fact, Dr Villarica’s words were ‘Either you >hand us the domain gracefully, or we will take it >away from you’. With statements like that, >generally no agreement is possible. At that time >- 1992 - there was also no concept of online >forms or online payments.

What Dr Villarica recalls is that Disini was asking for a free 64kbps link to the Internet, just for himself, for a lifetime.  This was when the entire PHNET system had a *shared* 64kbps link for *all* 10 founding members at a cost of USD10,000/mo.  In other words, Disini wanted to sell the PHccTLD as if he owned it.  Obviously, nothing was going to be worked out.

Obviously there was an agreement—this is the reason why PHNET runs the EDU.PH Registry and DOST runs the GOV.PH Registry.

It was Dr Goldstein who negotiated with Dr Postel to transfer the PHccTLD to PHNET. Dr Postel worked on the compromise agreement that PHNET should run EDU.PH, ORG.PH, and GOV.PH and have Disini Inc control the rest.  Dr Goldstein brought this agreement to Dr Villarica. Dr Villarica agreed.

>What happened is that IANA and I agreed to have >PHNET handle the EDU.PH and GOV.PH domains. It >was implicit that the PH Nameserver would >continue to service the EDU.PH domain, and that >PHNET would pay for whatever costs are associated >with providing that service. To date, P1,350 is >the only bill that DotPH has assessed PHNET over >the last 15 years.

No, it was implicit that there would be no payment associated for the EDU.PH domain.

> EMIL: Actually, it isn’t news.  It’s always been
> PHDF and DotPH Domains.  It just seems like
> someone in CICT didn’t do their homework, is all.

MANNY SEZ: >Hmmm… who runs PHDF, Emil? And who runs DotPH?

>PH DOMAIN FOUNDATION INC. was started by Mr. Jose Emmanuel Disini (http://www.phdf.org.ph/profile.html).

>And, of course, the same person runs DotPH.

>So, this “separation” is really just on paper isn’t it? Both the Registry and Registrar functions are *still* controlled by Mr. Disini. Some compliance!

EMIL: Actually the CICT Guidelines refer to Administrator - Registrar separation, not Registry-Registrar separation. Your scathing reaction is precisely what CICT wanted to avoid.  If CICT were to say “DotPH complies with the Guidelines"- with any visible changes in our structure - they would be crucified by people like you. This is why we think they dropped the ball on this.

I think it’s pretty clear that PHDF doesn’t perform any Registrar functions (eg sell domains).  Removing Joel Disini from PHDF is something we already offered to CICT Commissioner Pena a long time ago. Since the registration policy in PH is essentially first-come, first-served, there would be no reason for DotPH to get involved in Administrator affairs.  The only real roadblock on our end to signing a contract that complies with the Guidelines were the super clauses - the ones giving Government arbitrary power.

Hi Wyn,

>>On Abe’s blog, i recall Joel saying as low as $15 (for bulk/wholesale, minimum 1200 domains)?  Am assuming that the pricing (wherever it originates) is uniform
for all?

EMIL: Yes. The prices are publicly available on the dotPH website http://dot.ph for all to see and compare.

>>I feel that $15 is still on the high side. But, my personal opinion aside, has PHDF or dotPH considered the possiblity that there would be much greater take-up of .PH domains were the price more reasonable (for small, even single purchase quantities)?

EMIL: We’ve done better than that. For the last 3 years, we’ve offered a new domain class - personal domains (domains for people who need a personal email address, or who maintain a personal website - such as a blog) - for free. Our numbers show that there isn’t significant difference in the number of registrants - whether the domain is priced at $35, or priced at $0.  It seems the demand for domains is pretty much inelastic.

CHIN: >>To answer the points you raise, how hard is it to understand “public resource” in the same way airwaves, the waterways and air lanes are public resources that are owned by everyone in this country?

EMIL: We’ve answered this extensively in Sec. II here http://www.domains.ph/news.asp?more=http://registrarnews.ph/dotphnews/archives/000228.html#more

We believe the DNS is not a Philippine public resource but a Global public resource, to be administered by a Global entity (ICANN), not the Philippine Government.

>> Nobody wants a lot of red tape. On the other hand, I do not want a private entity dictating to me how a resource that I also own (it’s public, remember?) is to be used, without asking me (or my representative—that’s what we have in a democracy) FIRST.

EMIL: ICANN (who has the final say in how all TLDs are run) already has a formal mechanism for participation that includes stakeholders. See http://alac.icann.org/

BOMBIM: >>There never was a down time of the EDU.PH DNS Service. Disini,Inc had never shown
any period of time of his own choosing (there are an infinite number of such periods to choose), when the EDU.PH DNS service was down.
========

Bombim,

Major outages (at least 5 hours) of http://dns.ph.net, the EDU.PH website, during which no one could register, manage or modify their EDU.PH domains:

Sept. 2, 2004 = 5 hours 29 mins

Sept. 3, 2004 = 11 hours 50 mins

Sept. 6, 2004 = 9 hours 6 mins

Sept. 10, 2004 = 7 hours 46 mins

Sept. 30, 2004 = 5 hours 57 mins

Nov. 10, 2004 = 14 hours 46 mins

Nov. 11, 5 hours 42 mins

Nov. 21, 2004 = 16 hours 17 mins

Dec. 3, 2004 = 9 hours 54 mins

Dec. 5, 2004 = 5 hours 15 mins

Dec. 6, 2004 = 16 hours 29 mins

Dec. 7, 2004 = 8 hours 29 mins

Dec. 12, 2004 = 23 hours 56 mins

Dec. 13, 2004 = 11 hours 34 mins

Dec. 15, 2004 = 7 hours 51 mins

Dec. 31, 2004 = 14 hours 37 mins

Jan.1, 2005 = 23 hours 55 mins

Jan. 2, 2005 = 23 hours 56 mins

Jan.3, 2005 = 15 hours 43 mins

Mar. 26, 2005 = 8 hours 11 mins

Mar. 27, 2005 = 23 hours 48 mins

Mar. 28, 2005 = 7 hours 31 mins

Emil: Since the registration policy in PH is essentially first-come, first-served, there
> would be no reason for DotPH to get involved in Administrator affairs.

Or so Disini may claim. But that is irrelevant and non-binding. The fact remains that the Administrator and Registrar (and also the Registry and Registrar) functions are controlled by Disini.

“Removing” Disini from PHDF would only be cosmetic. It would still be run by people beholden to him or under his control. The PHDF would still *not* be the least bit independent of Joel Disini. He essentially owns PHDF and DotPH. Any way you put it, there is still no compliance whatsoever.

And, of course, since Disini is not accountable to any of the stakeholders, he and can continue to exercise control without consultation.

By the way, you still haven’t answered my question about the other “dotph-related” companies registered with the SEC. Are the following owned by Disini too?

* DOTPH COMPUTER RENTALS
* DOTPHONE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SERVICES
* SMEDOTPH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CO.
* SPEEDLINK DOTPH INC.

Hello Emil!

Thanks for replying.

> EMIL: ... For the last 3 years, we’ve offered a new domain class - personal domains (domains for people who need a
> personal email address, or who maintain a personal website - such as a blog) - for free. Our numbers show that there
> isn’t significant difference in the number of registrants - whether the domain is priced at $35, or priced at
> $0.  It seems the demand for domains is pretty much inelastic.

Clarification ... are you referring to the “i.ph” domains and/or the very long domain names?  In either case, these are
far from “normal” domains, so perhaps you folks haven’t really probed the elasticity of the .ph domain market yet?
When you say “inelastic”, just how many domains are we talking about, what’s the growth curve (under the current pricing
regime) like?  Maybe could be better, given all the advances in Net technology.

Also, i expect that “i.ph” would be tied to services provided by other Disini companies, was this also true for the very long domain names?

And, this reply of yours wasn’t to me, but if i may just clarify a few more points.  I’m not going to go into the definitions of “administrator” and
“Registry”, but this part is of interest ...

> EMIL: I think it’s pretty clear that PHDF doesn’t perform any Registrar
> functions (eg sell domains).  Removing Joel Disini from PHDF is something we
> already offered to CICT Commissioner Pena a long time ago.

Would you have the specifics of this offer?

> Since the registration policy in PH is essentially first-come, first-
> served, there would be no reason for DotPH to get involved in Administrator
> affairs. 

True.

> The only real roadblock on our end to signing a contract that complies with
> the Guidelines were the super clauses the ones giving Government arbitrary
> power.

But wouldn’t a tripartite agreement between the government, ICANN and you
trump the provisions of the guidelines? After all, if the government entity that
signs off on the tripartite agreement is the same one that issued the guidelines
... you get my meaning.

Also, if these super clauses (mainly having to do with government’s role and
powers) were the deal breaker, then seems to me that these details could’ve been
discussed openly and minor revisions made that would result in a framework
acceptable to all parties.

2-bits,
WYn

Hi Wyn,

WYN: >>Also, i expect that “i.ph” would be tied to services provided by other Disini companies, was this also true for the very long domain names?

EMIL: Nope. Right now the I.PH domain comes with a free blog and hosting, but we’ll be uncoupling that soon so people can get just the domain.

WYN: >>Would you have the specifics of this offer?

EMIL: That Joel Disini would step down as a member of the Board of PHDF.

WYN: >>But wouldn’t a tripartite agreement between the government, ICANN and you
trump the provisions of the guidelines? After all, if the government entity that
signs off on the tripartite agreement is the same one that issued the guidelines
... you get my meaning.

EMIL: There’s no way that ICANN will agree to a tripartite agreement when the Guidelines make them (ICANN) subservient to the RP gov’t.

WYN: >>Also, if these super clauses (mainly having to do with government’s role and
powers) were the deal breaker, then seems to me that these details could’ve been
discussed openly and minor revisions made that would result in a framework
acceptable to all parties.

EMIL: It was made clear to us that the Guidelines were set in stone and making any revisions whatsoever was not an option.

EMIL: That Joel Disini would step
> down as a member of the Board of PHDF

That’s all? What about removing the other members who are beholden to him? Better yet, why not pass the functions to a *truly independent* body? Why is Disini against that? Does Disini think he’s the only person who can perform those functions? If, as you said, DotPH does not really need to get involved in those functions, then why not let an independent body perform them?

By the way, I am still waiting for your answer on the other “dotph-related” companies I mentioned. Are these companies also owned or run by Disini? These are:

* DOTPH COMPUTER RENTALS
* DOTPHONE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SERVICES
* SMEDOTPH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CO.
* SPEEDLINK DOTPH INC.

This is the *THIRD* time I have asked. Why can’t you provide a simple answer? Doesn’t Disini know which companies her owns?

MANNY SEZ: >>By the way, you still haven’t answered >my question about the other “dotph-related” >companies registered with the SEC. Are the >following owned by Disini too?

>* DOTPH COMPUTER RENTALS
>* DOTPHONE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SERVICES
>* SMEDOTPH TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CO.
>* SPEEDLINK DOTPH INC.

EMIL: Congratulations, Manny. You’ve uncovered our strategy for global Internet domination