Re: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2
- To: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Version 2
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:31:35 -0800
George and all,
Yes Mr. Neuman has long ago been recognized as too
predictable, and often wrong/falacious. The history is
all avaliable and broadly known. What amazes me is that
Neustar still has the contract with DOC to manage .US.
In any event, no matter what evidance you or anyone else
may provide, Mr. Neuman will never recognize it or will
find some obscure language to attempt to deflect or discredit
same. Ergo he could care less.
George Kirikos wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> Just to followup:
> --- On Thu, 2/19/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- On Thu, 2/19/09, Neuman, Jeff
> > <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > some other mechanism taking advantage of the secondary
> > > market)? Can you
> > > give me one example where a registry had actually
> > seized a
> > > name for
> > > itself?
> Here's a better example of an allegation of a registry taking names for
> itself (allegedly):
> "In the last couple of days documentation has been lodged with the Supreme
> Court of Queensland that has confirmed that the Australian domain industry
> regulator, au Domain Administration Ltd, has invented complaints in order to
> strip businesses of their Au domains.
> For example, the auDA compliance officer (Shane Honey) under instructions
> from the CEO (Chris Dispain) was told to send an email to the company Domain
> Directors regarding the domain auregistry.com.au and give them only 48 hours
> to respond prior to the domain auregistry.com.au being taken from them.
> Whatâ??s worse is that Domain Directorâ??s has owned and operated
> auregistry.com.au as a registrar for the past 8 years!"
> Is that a good enough example for you? This is exactly why one doesn't want
> to give registry operators unneeded powers, as they will ultimately find ways
> to abuse those powers. Power corrupts, as we've seen time and time again.
> > In other words, was NTIA's procedure for procurement of
> > .us registry services superior or inferior to ICANN's
> > existing and proposed procedures?
> > I believe you won't answer this question. :) If you say
> > "NTIA's procedure is better" you break with
> > registry constituency solidarity in managing its affairs
> > with ICANN. You would be agreeing with me, and you certainly
> > don't want to do that.
> > If on the other hand you say "ICANN's procedure is
> > better", you give ammunition to people like me that say
> > "See, registry operators have taken advantage of the
> > public through ICANN, and are making more money in that cozy
> > club than they would through tenders." It would also be
> > a slap in the face of your NTIA masters if you picked this
> > answer.
> > So, here's your big chance, who has got it right, NTIA
> > with competitive procurements (tenders you have participated
> > in and won), or ICANN?
> You never did answer the question of whether NTIA's procedure was superior to
> or inferior to that of ICANN. You're too predictable! ;)
> George Kirikos
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
My Phone: 214-244-4827