<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] "Ongoing Programs" Mechanism
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] "Ongoing Programs" Mechanism
- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:08:57 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=rX2nUh2D25xTtk33zRZ84fpAK6y+WA2ORhTWS/J0a+MfhI2fhpzyO6fbn3EXKnEdn036Jc5ITc+5WBfOkIZKG4LSEwj5cr4GjXNatfVRStM9NyPEvvox53mG3aEEJpb64DNmqtYr/iRANWQeBnj+TcKf2WyODDM323XHrlV/cCg= ;
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512141437550.5215@lear.cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Karl raises a very good point: "Why the ^%!~ should
there be "negotiations"?"
Why is there the presumption that new gTLDs will
necessarily require a contract? The DNS currently has
264 TLDs. ICANN has contracts only with 18 of those
sponsoring organizations. Over 93% of all TLD
sponsors have no contract with ICANN.
One should also note that ICANN has no contract with
the sponsors of .edu, .mil, .int, or .gov.
Why then should a new gTLD sponsor be required to sign
a contract? Where is the community consensus that
this is a necessity?
What if members of Civil Society decided to launch a
.SUCKS domain and told ICANN that they would not be
prepared to accept a contract? Would .SUCKS ever be
entered into the root? Would a failure to enter an
approved domain into the root owing to a lack of a
negotiated contract constitute restraint of trade?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|