Re: [ga] ICANN's staff is inept -- deja vu

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

George,

I had the same problem attempting to submit my
comments.

best regards,
Danny


--- George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ICANN doesn't seem to really want people to comment
> on the new .biz,
> .info, and .org contracts. See the bounced email I
> received below, when
> I *tried* to submit comments (and I got more than 1
> bounce message, so
> more than 1 of those email addresses is bad at
> 
>
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm
> 
> where none of my comments appear, 3 hours after I
> submitted them.
> 
> The first time, it is just amusing:
> 
>
http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2006/5/24/1982288.html
> 
> When it happens repeatedly, it demonstrates ICANN's
> staff is simply and
> utterly incompetent (which is no surprise given that
> the terms of these
> and past contracts that these people "negotiated" on
> our behalf). I
> invested the time to make comments. The least
> ICANN's staff can do is
> pretend that they are listening, by testing their
> submission email
> addresses to see that they in fact work!
> 
> Get your act together, really. Incompetence might be
> a prerequisite to
> work at ICANN, but unless you're a "lifer", you'll
> have little chance
> of doing well outside this organization in the real
> world.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> P.S. The GA list works, at least. My comments made
> it to:
> 
>
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04185.html
> 
> --- Mail Delivery Subsystem
> <MAILER-DAEMON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:27:47 -0700
> > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
> <MAILER-DAEMON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details
> > 
> > The original message was received at Sat, 29 Jul
> 2006 09:27:47 -0700
> > from web50015.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.39.87]
> > 
> >    ----- The following addresses had permanent
> fatal errors -----
> > info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >     (reason: 550 5.1.1
> <info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
> > User unknown)
> >     (expanded from:
> <info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>)
> > 
> >    ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> > ... while talking to greenriver.icann.org.:
> > >>> DATA
> > <<< 550 5.1.1
> <info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>... User
> > unknown
> > 550 5.1.1
> info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx User
> unknown
> > <<< 503 5.0.0 Need RCPT (recipient)
> > > Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: .biz, .info and .org want to be like .tv?
> > To: biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx,
> info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx,
> >         org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > The proposed changes to the .biz, .info and .org
> registry agreements
> > are entirely unacceptable, for all the same
> reasons that have been
> > expressed in the past over the .com proposed
> settlement with VeriSign
> > (see www.cfit.info or the comment board for the
> .com settlement
> > proposal). While the existing ICANN Board might
> have foolishly
> > accepted
> > those terms, over the nearly unanimous protest of
> the broader
> > community, the .com proposed agreement has yet to
> even be approved by
> > the Department of Commerce. It is amusing to see
> the registry
> > operators
> > for .biz, .info and .org racing to try to
> capitalize upon a lame duck
> > ICANN Board. The composition of the ICANN Board
> will change due to
> > the
> > end of term of various board members, and next
> year the votes that
> > approved the .com settlement might by very
> different. These registry
> > operators have not even waited to see if the
> changes to the .com
> > agreement will be formally accepted by the DoC,
> and stand up to
> > litigation. 
> > 
> > This should be a lesson to the Board that bad
> decision-making has
> > many
> > consequences. This is further justification for
> continuing oversight
> > of
> > ICANN.
> > 
> > Furthermore, if ICANN accepts these contractual
> changes before the
> > DoC
> > has spoken, all hell will break loose, because
> VeriSign will then
> > have
> > the argument that they're only seeking what other
> registries have
> > been
> > granted. But, isn't that the argument of the .biz,
> .info, and .org
> > operators? Which came first, the chicken or the
> egg?
> > 
> > ICANN should not be in the business of creating
> perpetual unregulated
> > monopolies via the granting of presumptive renewal
> without price
> > caps.
> > As has been said before by others, registry
> operators can have a
> > choice. They can have presumptive renewal, but
> with price controls
> > based on cost recovery (i.e. like a utility). Or,
> they can have no
> > price controls, but be subject to a regular
> rebidding process (where
> > a
> > fixed price during the term of the contract
> exists). But, to give the
> > registry operators both presumptive renewal AND no
> price controls
> > boggles the mind. Have ICANN staff and Board
> members ever taken a
> > single business course? Have they ever studied
> economics? This is
> > basic
> > first principles stuff. It is clear that the
> people negotiating on
> > behalf of the registry operators have studied
> economics, as they are
> > winning big with these proposed changes, and will
> see their profits
> > rise substantially, at the community's expense.
> ICANN loses its
> > legitimacy as a representative of the community
> when it knowingly
> > permits this to happen to the detriment of
> registrants.
> > 
> > Essentially, these new agreements have the
> effective of SELLING .biz,
> > .info, and .org gTLDs to the existing registry
> operators, without any
> > form of auction, but simply through a poor
> negotiation. Even Tuvalu
> > *sold* .tv, yet ICANN simply gives away the TLD!
> > 
> > Just to see how terrible the new proposed
> contracts are, which
> > entirely
> > lift price controls (which is more freedom than
> even VeriSign gets,
> > who
> > can't raise prices more than 7% per year), I could
> not find anything
> > in
> > the new contract to even compel the registries to
> charge a fixed
> > price
> > per domain name! There is reference to "Exhibit
> E", but there is
> > nothing preventing the registry operators from
> changing the simple
> > formula in Exhibit E into a more complex formula
> or 
=== message truncated ===


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