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

["John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny -

Here is my analogy:

A small business created a product 13 years ago and while barely profitable in the best of time, it has struggled for this 
bakers-dozens of years
to gain market share. There have been many setbacks - the trade organization that it formed with others to help bolster its position 
was beset
with infighting and agent provocateurs (sp) planted by the Big Bad Monopoly, one of which is probably still in the trade group (I 
become more
convinced of that every day).

In spite of all of these problems, the little company is still in existence, albeit in stagnant market position, but still holding 
out some hope
that they can make it.

All of a sudden, Big Bad Monopoly, through its influence with policymakers, 
etc, comes along and outright STEALS the product of the
small company and auctions it off to some of its rich fat-cat friends.

Some say, "Well why doesn't small company bid as well". Answer, why should they 
have to? The business product belonged to SmallCo
in the first place - it does not belong to Big Bad Monopoly.

I am all for free and fair enterprise and free markets, but the one thing that I need to emphasize is the FAIR pat. Thats what 
missing. Its wrong
for people to steal the property of others and pretend that they have the right to then sell it to someone else. If I stole a car 
from a car dealership
and tried to sell it to someone else, I'd be in jail for a long time. Why should ICANN be allowed to steal the property of others 
and re-sell it to
the highest bidder?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New top-level internet addresses come with $100,000-plus 
price tag


> 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).