RE: [ga] Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

thank you for your response.

But, honestly, isn't it stunning that after a year and after the meeting
in Sao Paulo where this issue was officially, and I would say
fearlessly, presented, neither the GNSO nor the ALAC (nor the other
constituencies) have raised an official request for opening it as a
regular issue. What, on earth, prevents them from doing so? As regards
the registrars, I know positively that Bob Parsons from GoDaddy asked
ICANN for dealing with it several times. As I am able to understand the
attitude of the registries and, perhaps, some registrars, the others
have simply failed. Roberto, you don't have to defend indefensible.

Tha fact the Goodle guy voted for the re-registration fee for PIR says
nothing. Firstly, PIR is not Verisign, and secondly, the number of such
abused .BIZ domains is negligible and therefore commercially not
interesting at all (for Google). All that voting could have been nothing
but a mimicry.
But if you were about to discuss .COM domains with Verisign and Google,
believe me, you would have stayed pretty surprised.

Regards

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:48 PM
To: 'kidsearch'; Dominik Filipp; 'General Assembly of the DNSO'
Subject: RE: [ga] Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die

Dominik:
> > And are you sure this couldn't have happened? Be sure that
> things like
> > that would never be thrashing out during discussions or
> meetings. One or
> > two years have already passed away and yet the tasting has not been 
> > raised as an issue despite all that unceasing rush around.
> >
> > If I asked you what's happened on that recently at ICANN I
> would bet you
> > have nothing to say. Wish I was completely wrong in the assumption.
> >
> > So, after collecting the significant facts, I would say
> this potentially
> > good inspiracy theory could be pretty valid.

Interesting.

I see your point.
My assesment is different: nothing happened simply because there has
been no interest in letting anything happen neither from the registrars,
because they (some of them, at least) profit of the situation, nor from
the registries, that have learned how to live with that and did not want
to raise the issue formally. What is under discussion is precisely an
element of the Registry/Registrar agreements, and the Board has
estimated inappropriate to intervene in absence of a call by one of the
two parties.
Only very recently PIR asked the Board the permission to apply a fee for
"excess registration", in an attempt to curb the phenomenon. At its
meeting on 2006-11-22, the Board, including the supposed conspirators
from Google et al., voted yes *unanimously* (minutes and voting record
are public).
My personal opinion is that the grace period should be abolished,
because we do have evidence that it does not fulfill the role that it
was initially designed for. However, I believe that if the Board acted
in absence of a request from one of the two parties, and in absence of a
policy advise from the GNSO, it would establish a dangerous precedent of
ingerence in the market. Besides, I am sure that large part of the
people who criticize now the lack of action would criticise tomorrow a
decision by the Board not solicited by either party as proof of ICANN
becoming a regulator.

Best regards,
Roberto