Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100,000-plus price tag

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sotiris, Danny and all,

  I can't say if Danny is bucking for employment with ICANN,
but he has recently become no longer a spokesman for ISOC-NY.
By in large though, I personally feel Danny has been balanced in his
remarks vis a vi ICANN.

  I believe this modified thread started out as being one that mainly
was expressing the disagreement to ICANN setting a price for
the filing of a gTLD proposal under their new resolution to open
up the gTLD name space, which I support doing so BTW.  The
secondary point of this modified thread was that in opening up the
gTLD name space, ICANN may/will cause collisions with other
already established alternative TLD name spaces that have been
operating for some time now.

  Given that these are indeed the two main points of this modified
thread, I have sympathies myself with both points.  The first, as
I have in my own way defined it, is particularly egregious to small
business as it puts a price on a "Maybe" that is not refundable.  This
is unfair to small business or startup businesses in the IT community
that may wish to manage a new gTLD for whatever reason, and as
such is anti competitive to that degree.  However if ICANN were
to agree to refund part/most of your application fee of $100,000 or
more if your application proposal is rejected for whatever reason
than that would go a long way to mitigating this objection to the
process which I personally and professionally agree is egregious
unnecessarily.

  The second main point is far more complicated to address or
solve if indeed a well received need to solve it can be reasonably
articulate or argue in the case of a legal action regarding.  If existing
alternitive/inclusive gTLD name spaces can show without reasonable
objection that "They were there first", and have copious documentation
to present as evidence, than they have a better then 50% chance of
prevailing in court under restraint of trade statutes.  But my guess is
that such a case will be long, hard fought, and very expensive unless
pro bono services can be obtained by the plaintiff.  I would contact
Gerry Spence as he would possibly be interested in such a case
on contingency.  That contingency would likely be part ownership
and the right to sue the defendants if he can prevail on your behalf,
for damages.  But I do not know if he would be so interested in such
a case, however it seems to me he very well might if you can present
a good reason along the basic lines I have presented here.  To me this
is a classic case of the "little guy against the big bad government supported
monster type of case"...

  His web site is http://www.gerryspence.com/
But beware if you decide to contact Gerry, as he is a wile old
fox, one of the best trail lawyers ever ( he has never lost a case in
48+ years ).  Beh honest, forthright, and sincere in your intentions
or he will reject you out of hand.  I believe that Dr. Joe Baptista
and John would have the best opportunity here, BTW ( hint, hint ).
And if I were a part owner or root server operator under Johns
operation or a legal agent for either I would be more than happy
to represent their interests as a resident American in their behalf.
But alas, I am not...  But it also might be better to have Mr. Dierker
represent these entities on their behalf accordingly as he is a
California resident.  However as it has seemed for some time
he too has become an "ICANN Apologist" as Sotiris puts it,
it is doubtful he would do so, or would be enthusiastic in doing so.


sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> What a load of crap Danny! Are you bucking for employment at ICANN again
> or something?
>
> Truly a sad day for the Internet indeed.
>
> Here's an analogy for you: What if your town along with your neighbouring
> towns have simply lost confidence in the existing Highway or Levee
> authorities because they have been siphoning off the the money that was
> intended for maintenance to say... fight pointless wars overseas or some
> such nonsense... So, the highway and levee systems around your town(s) are
> not what you and your fellow country bumpkins were hoping for when you
> paid your taxes like good little sheeple. So, your town and its
> neighbouring towns decide to build your own highways and levee systems ON
> YOUR OWN PRIVATE LAND. You end up running into many others in neighbouring
> towns and cities who feel the same way across the country and all together
> and at your own expense you end up setting up your system of highways (or
> levees). Then, all of a sudden, the looters at the now anachronistic
> Highway/Levee Authority move in and take over your highways and levees
> because they have the guns, bombs, and HAARP. How would that make you feel
> Mr. Establishment Apologist?
>
> Regards,
>
> Sotiris
>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I don't see it that way.  Let me try to use an analogy.  There are a set
> > of properties that are in a poorly-trafficked side of town.  Most folks
> > can't easily find these properties as they are not listed in the maps
> > (search engines) that most people will use.  They provide some local
> > benefit to those that own the properties and to the limited set of
> > neighbors that are aware of the property locations, but as they are not
> > situated on the main thoroughfares, most will just pass them by without
> > even realizing that they are there.
> >
> > The owners of these properties can arrange to move these structures to the
> > main highway by entering into a leasehold arrangement with the highway
> > department (the same way that a McDonald's, for example, can occupy a
> > prime rest stop location along an interstate thruway).  Of course, these
> > property owners may have to compete with other property owners to obtain
> > such a lease.
> >
> > And yes, there are times when a major highway might pass through a minor
> > property development and create a loss situation for a property owner as
> > the highway builders exercise their eminent domain rights.  In such cases,
> > there are victims, and often enough such victims are not compensated.
> >
> > Anyone that has watched the development plans for this highway has known
> > that it has been many years in the making; certainly enough time for
> > property owners to make their plans.
> >
> > Most would say:  you can't stop the march of progress.  Most would also
> > agree that progress outweighs the needs of the few whose assets might be
> > damaged.  Such is life.
> >
> > Those that choose not to get out of the way of a steamroller will wind up
> > being crushed -- that's just the way that it is.  If you seek to grow your
> > properties, the consider entering into the process set up by the highway
> > department.  You have just as much right as anyone else to bid on a lease
> > (and ICANN leases are forever).  Put together a business plan and field a
> > bid.  It's a better option than grousing over the current situation.
> >
> > regards,
> > Danny
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/28/08, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with
> >> $100,000-plus price tag
> >> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Date: Saturday, June 28, 2008, 4:27 PM
> >> This is nothing but an attempt at wholesale theft of
> >> property from one group
> >> of people (small businesses) by an organization so that
> >> they can sell that stolen
> >> property to rich and powerful people. Most of the gTLDs
> >> that are popular
> >> are already owned and operated by companies, most of them
> >> small businesses
> >> with limited resources. You know how justice works in the
> >> country - You get
> >> justice if you can buy it, otherwise, you're out of
> >> luck. They are now proposing
> >> to do what they did with .BIZ back in 2000 on a wide scale
> >> basis.
> >>
> >> Whats new? ICANN is all about stealing things it does not
> >> own and profiting
> >> off of it. We all know, for instance, that the UDRP is
> >> nothing but a scheme that allows rich
> >> and powerful interests to steal domains from poor people.
> >>
> >> ICANN, Dick Cheney, George Bush, the Bilderburgs,
> >> Hapsburgs, Vladimir
> >> Putin, Robert Mugabe - no difference between any of them.
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Dominik Filipp"
> >> <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> >> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 1:59 PM
> >> Subject: RE: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come
> >> with $100,000-plus price tag
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sotiris,
> >>
> >> bright conclusions as usual, but I see one positive aspect
> >> on it, a
> >> decrease of Verisign's .COM dominance. Just imagine
> >> perfect URL
> >> addresses such as
> >>
> >> http://microsoft
> >> http://ibm
> >> http://xerox
> >>
> >> affordable for the rich though.
> >>
> >> But all the rest in your post remains perfectly valid.
> >>
> >> Dominik
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> >> Of sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:03 PM
> >> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with
> >> $100,000-plus
> >> price tag
> >>
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> See article:
> >> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article4218629
> >> .ece
> >>
> >> One last money grab by the looters at ICANN and their
> >> moocher cronies.
> >> The day of the truly international, standardized Internet
> >> is over. This
> >> move is a pretty transparent attempt to dominate any DNS
> >> system by a
> >> bunch of shortsighted and pigheaded individuals who have
> >> all the
> >> visionary capacity of a rotten potato. The real (and
> >> unstated) intent of
> >> this move is to preclude the advent of extra-ICANN DNS
> >> systems in any
> >> language on earth, such that the resulting (or continuing)
> >> US dominated
> >> addressing system will remain within the purview of
> >> American control. In
> >> effect, what ICANN is telling the world is that no
> >> country/nation has
> >> the right to create its own DNS as they will simply collide
> >> it into
> >> irrelevancy and make a handsome "profit" at the
> >> same time!
> >>
> >> A sad day for Internet users worldwide.
> >>
> >> Sotiris
> >>
> >> P.S. I will be unsubscribing from this list as there is no
> >> longer any
> >> reason for me to follow the meaningless blabber hereon.
> >> Good luck to all
> >> of you (except to the looters and moochers, I hope your
> >> genitalia rot).
> >
> >
> >
> >

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"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]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
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
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827