Re: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik, those who already have, get. Thats unfortunately a reality. Those with money to pay will get the domains. It will never be equal choice.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dominik Filipp 
  To: Tim Ruiz 
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Stephane Bortzmeyer ; Danny Younger 
  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:43 AM
  Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction


  Tim,

  as for the one-letter second-level domain release, the only fair-minded attitude one can stand for is designing a release process allowing anybody to take part in the registration of these domains on equal chance basis. Any other solution prioritizing commercial interests and exluding the majority of registrants out of the process would just be yet another speculation. If this intention is not sufficiently supported by WG or such a process is not technically or effectively achievable for any reason then, indeed, these recommendations and proposals should be better thrown into the trash.

  Dominik



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
  Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:07 PM
  To: Dominik Filipp
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Danny Younger
  Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction


  Dominik,

  The first priority of the Reserved Names WG is to provide background and recommendations to the new gTLDs regarding the introduction of new gTLDs, specifically reserved strings at the top level. The terms of work for the WG also includs reviewing reserved names at the second level since such reservation requirements will affect any new gTLD operators that are selected. 

  So it is not that ICANN has prioritized the release of single character names at the second level above everything else, it is included in the work as applicable to the introduction of new gTLDs. But of course, there's no doubt that various parties within the WG are primarily involved for that reason. And there's no doubt that the lobbying done by some of those parties is partly why that category of reserved names is included in the WG's terms of work.


  Tim 




    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction
    From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
    Date: Fri, March 09, 2007 2:51 am
    To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>, "Danny Younger"
    <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
    Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

    There is perhaps no reasons to reserve one-letter names in general but
    it's surprising that ICANN, instead of dealing with much more important
    and urgent agenda, is putting its effort into something that again
    smacks of sort of bargaining. We are talking about exactly 26 domain
    names gaining extreme value during the long time they are being
    reserved, worthy of millions bucks each when auctioned. You can be damn
    sure most of the names once released will soon appear at auctions and
    all the profit will come to the pockets of those demanding their release
    at ICANN today.

    So, not the names themselves but the order of importance is what makes
    me sick.

    Dominik


    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
    Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
    Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:02 PM
    To: Danny Younger
    Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Subject: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction

    On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:35:18PM -0800,  Danny Younger
    <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote  a message of 71 lines which said:
    >> These recommendations should be thrown into the trash,

    > Why? There were absolutely no reasons to reserve these names.
    > Therefore, there are no reasons to keep them frozen.

    > I am under the strong feeling that some people will refuse
    > anything coming from ICANN. Most of the time, ICANN is accused of
    > regulating too much. And now that a report suggest to loosen the grip,
    > always-complainers regret the old restriction?