RE: [ga] Strong Arm Tactics

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I cannot imagine this man is so in the dark that he has not seen such contracts. I have! and I am but a poor waife meandering in the darkness of lack of openess and transparency. Is my color too dark, or do I speak a foreign language and have slanted eyes? How disabled can this man be not to see what is in front of his own eyes? Must China write it for him in plain Mandarin?
 
Senior Palage,
 
Please speak in honesty and openness. Put down your weapon of authority and walk away or accept the challenge of virtue in what you do. First look at your child and then look in the mirror and say again you are ignorant. Oh what a thankless task you have, to travel my globe on my proposed 75 cents (note; it is not .75 cents for that is redundant and may have skewed your math). May Allah show mercy on your jetlagged brain. ICANN is on the verge of death or resurrection but it shall not be born on those who hide in ignorance claiming as VB that they are overworked and non-compensated. Either raise or raze your self to the task or lay down your provocation of authority. {sorry I think that was Cicero}
 
Eric 

"Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
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 

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