ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)

  • To: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)
  • From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:49:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)

George and all,

  The ICANN "Forum" is and always has been for show and as such as you rightly 
comments there unto partaining, much like the GA, are largely ignored.  So 
to the contrary by ICANN staff are demonstrably false.

-----Original Message-----
>From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sep 23, 2009 11:11 AM
>To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] DC hearing on new TLDs at 10 am today (September 23rd)
>Hi Kim,
>--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Kim Davies <kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Lets assume I agree with your supposition, I would want to
>> know if there is
>> a way to address it. In your view, is there a way these
>> externalities could
>> be priced into the models of new TLDs so there is no
>> subsidisation?
>Let's not pretend that I've not already addressed these issues in my past very 
>detailed comments. ICANN simply ignores public comments. The statements by 
>ICANN officials are condescending to the public who've voiced very thoughtful 
>objections over the entire process and reversals of policy that are against 
>the public interest.
>Notice you didn't comment whatsoever about price caps, and the debate we had 
>in 2006. Yet, the DAG guidebooks are a total betrayal of the public in that 
>regard (and others).
>But for those who aren't from ICANN, you can see the past analysis from Tim 
>Berners Lee that I deconstructed at:
>Or you could look at my detailed submission at:
>which talked explicitly about the concept of "easements", which directly 
>addresses "externalities" with pretty pictures, too.
>Or one could read all my past comments that are linked to from the comment at:
>Now, if you want to be constructive, please explain to me why ICANN thinks 
>it's perfectly fine that gTLDs (via the "equal treatment clause", even 
>existing gTLDs, not just new TLDs) should be able to raise the renewal price 
>on any domain to any price they desire, e.g. $1 billion/yr for Google.com, $10 
>million/yr for redcross.org, etc. How is that in the public interest, allowing 
>monopoly registries to gouge existing registrants? 
>ICANN talks about lowering prices through competition. That *sounds* great. 
>Notice that price caps won't prevent prices from falling --- it only protects 
>consumers from prices going up! If ICANN and new TLD advocates *truly* believe 
>that prices will go down with new TLDs, why don't they prove it by putting in 
>a price cap of say twice the dot-com registry price? That "caps the greed" of 
>registry operators to twice VeriSign's greed level. And it lets those who 
>truly think prices will go down to get their shot at running a registry at a 
>price below VeriSign, since they obviously would not be hurt in any way by 
>such a cap.
>The only people hurt by such a cap would be people who *falsely claim* they 
>want a new TLD in order to bring about lower prices through competition. New 
>TLDs want their costs (i.e. fees paid to ICANN) locked in via their contracts 
>with ICANN. Why can't consumers/registrants get the same protection and 
>BTW, notice ICANN stopped publishing the size of their losses from speculation 
>with their reserve fund, as noted in my comments at:
>Perhaps ICANN will have more legitimacy when they stop covering up 
>inconvenient truths and their past mistakes, and start to become accountable. 
>Maybe you can explain why ICANN actually *removed* data from their charts and 
>footnotes? I mentioned this to Rod Beckstrom directly via email, who did 
>nothing. It looks like ICANN staff has done a great job of "indoctrinating" 
>him over the past few months in the "ways of ICANN" -- I expect very little 
>will change under his lack of leadership in the coming years.
>George Kirikos


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k 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
Phone: 214-244-4827

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>