RE: [ga] Strong Arm Tactics

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny:

Until I see the proposed .NET contract which has not yet been posted, I will
withhold any detailed comment. However, I believe you raise a very valid
question, and I share your concern about ICANN adopting different standards
to treat similarly situated parties.

One of the reasons I made ICANN 's Strategic Plan Process a key focus of my
efforts in a potential second term, is that during my many years involved in
the ICANN process I have seen people focus all their efforts to win a single
battle, while unbeknownst to them they were actually losing the bigger war.
As I stated previously, I share your concerns about the apparent
arbitrariness of the .75 cent in connection with other similarly situated
gTLD registries. I believe questions needs to be asked when a draft/final
contract is posted.

I believe the common concern we share is making sure that ICANN does not
stray from its core mission and values. A natural downward pressure to
inhibit mission creep is a limited budget. However, since there is nothing
that would prevent ICANN from imposing this .75 cent on all gTLD registries,
would it not be in the best interest to win the war ("preventing ICANN
mission creep") to focus on meaningful input/enforcement mechanisms with
regard to the Strategic Plan?

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage


  -----Original Message-----
  From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Danny Younger
  Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:13 PM
  To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [ga] Strong Arm Tactics


  Mike,

  Your candidate statement refers to "the 75 cent fee incorporated into the
.NET RFP".  I hope you don't mind discussing this issue...

  As I recall, ICANN's MOU (under the PROHIBITIONS section) states:
"Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to the DNS
Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure particular persons
or entities or particular categories of persons or entities."

  If one gTLD registry is being charged this fee and others are not, why
wouldn't this be considered an arbitrary act that unjustifiably and
financially injures this one particular entity?  Why should the .net
registry have to pay more in fees than the other gTLD registries?

  Just because the .NET RFP coerces applicants into accepting the 75 cent
fee doesn't make it right.  To me, it seems like nothing more than blatant
strong-arm tactics at play.

  What is your view?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
  Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
  Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web