ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


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

Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems

  • To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems
  • From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:33:45 -0500
  • Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • References: <20051220140033.70583.qmail@web52915.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks Hugh, we agree there 100%, well, except it was thomas edison, not ben franklin. lol.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Hugh Dierker 
  To: Danny Younger ; kidsearch ; sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Karl Auerbach 
  Cc: Danny Younger ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:00 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Karl's comments at the 2003 Senate hearings on allocation systems


  Danny,

  What registrants will be hurt? Speculators? Squatters? Believe it or not when teaching capitalism to persons coming out of other forms of enterprise, the first lesson that should be taught is the "Right to Fail". No firing squads, debtors' prisons or need for suicide based in shame. Ben Franklyn said of the lightbulb "it was achieved by 1,999 failures".

  Business plan review by its' very nature must be confined to a very few in confidence, therefor it cannot be open and transparent anyway.  The whole notion of doing it at all is communistic in principal. "a committee shall review and determine if the plan is in the best interests of the State". It is pure fraud.

  e

  Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    Chris writes: "A bunch of people sitting on the ICANN
    BoD with dubious business acumen deciding whether or
    not my business
    plan is valid doesn't interest me at all."

    Having noted the failure of the .pro business plan (we
    are now into our second registry management group),
    and the failure of .name to get off the ground, I
    agree with Chris that ICANN lacks the competency to
    evaluate business plans.

    On the other hand, I'm not willing to take the
    cavalier attitude that if a registry fails it's not a
    big deal (as invariably it's the registrants that will
    be affected). 

    That said, I would be comfortable passing on the
    business plan examination if I has assurances that
    ICANN had developed a registry failover program.

    My policy recommendation: To expedite the launch of
    new gTLDs ICANN should eliminate registry financial
    considerations as a selection criterion; to safeguard
    the public interest ICANN should create a registry
    failover program.


    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
    http://mail.yahoo.com 



  __________________________________________________
  Do You Yahoo!?
  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 


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