Re: [ga] "Ongoing Programs" Mechanism

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

As far as I can tell, the only reason that there have
been negotiations has been to secure an adequate
funding stream for ICANN.  This has been a point of
concern to the DOC -- in Amendment 6 to the MOU they
state:  "Develop and implement a financial strategy
that explores options for securing more predictable
and sustainable sources of revenue".

Now that ICANN has a predictable and sustainable
source of revenue, additional revenue generating
contracts aren't required.  New gTLDs could
voluntarily donate funds to compensate for services
rendered (much like the ccTLDs) instead of being
required by contract to make such payments.



--- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Sorry to burst yours and Karls' bubble (although i
> think Karl was writing in the abstract)
>    
>   The easy reason is that there has to be
> negotiations because ICANN says so. If you do not
> like that, get public support to change it.
> Otherwise, complain all you want, but, live with it.
> Should is usually a term used by those without power
> to explain what actions those in power "should"
> take. The only proper question here is "Why are
> there negotiations."
>    
>   e
> 
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Karl raises a very good point: "Why the ^%!~
> should
> there be "negotiations"?"
> 
> Why is there the presumption that new gTLDs will
> necessarily require a contract? The DNS currently
> has
> 264 TLDs. ICANN has contracts only with 18 of those
> sponsoring organizations. Over 93% of all TLD
> sponsors have no contract with ICANN. 
> 
> One should also note that ICANN has no contract with
> the sponsors of .edu, .mil, .int, or .gov.
> 
> Why then should a new gTLD sponsor be required to
> sign
> a contract? Where is the community consensus that
> this is a necessity? 
> 
> What if members of Civil Society decided to launch a
> .SUCKS domain and told ICANN that they would not be
> prepared to accept a contract? Would .SUCKS ever be
> entered into the root? Would a failure to enter an
> approved domain into the root owing to a lack of a
> negotiated contract constitute restraint of trade?
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>   
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com