Re: [ga] ...a palpable hit

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto I tried that on and off the list in private. The multiple choice
answers given were exactly as I posted. Show me one substantial post made by
veni that actually answered any of the questions that were asked to him. I
don't apologize for calling a spade a spade.

All responses that were given were dodges. How that benefits anyone I am not
sure. Yes, we show some frustration because its the same year after year.
Whenever a board member says he will participate there ius absolutely no
substance to it. No real dialogue, no real answers, no real indication that
ICANN has any inclination at all to vary from there current course of
action.

The same responses are received by different people is all. The response
that the users of this list only represent themselves and by and large other
internet users are all happy with what ICANN is doing due to the fact they
are not here speaking up has been the attitude of board members as long as I
can remember.

I asked Veni to give me one positive thing about lifting the price caps for
the consumer. The question was totally ignored.

I asked Veni if he thought price restrictions were pro-competition. I got a
non-answer.

To every question he gave evasive or non-answers.

Why again am I supposed to value the participation of board members? Oh, I
remember, it was meant so they could actually listen and respond and maybe
even take suggestions from people who offer them under consideration.

Instead every time it becomes that unless you agree with whatever they are
doing, you are being counterproductive, negative, and off-topic.

The only user participation ICANN's Board seems to want is any that supports
their position. We are to be thankful for being allowed to speak up at all
it seems.

I respect your opinions Roberto because you actually speak to the topic and
say something substantive. Whenever someone refuses to do that and wants to
play politician, they get back the same.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:46 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] ...a palpable hit


> Hi, Sotiris!
>
> Since you asked, here's my view.
> Domain name tasting is by and large a nuisance to internet users. And not
> only to domain name registrants, who might be deprived of broader choice
of
> names (names are kept out of the market in the grace period
> registration/deletion game), but also to the plain net surfer who gets
> misled by search engines, landing on sites that were not the ones he/she
was
> looking for. As time is money, I would argue that the loss of time by the
> user has an actual monetary value, and on top of that a lot of people pay
> their internet access by the time of connection.
> And yes, I agree with Karl, the actual raw cost for the registry is
> substantially lower than the cost charged to registrars.
> Anyway, my opinions were known, also because I participated to a public
> debate in Marrakesh on the subject, and I brought exactly these positions,
> that are incidentally the positions of the ALAC.
>
> However, I would take this chance to make another couple of related
> comments.
> First of all, personally, I would be inclined to get rid altogether of the
> deletion grace period: this was intended for allowing registrants who
> mistyped the name to revert the transaction, but (again personally) I have
> to observe that in the real world most often than not one pays for his/her
> own mistakes. However, do I remember correctly that the deletion grace
> period was introduced exactly following indication from the community that
> registrants/consumers should be protected? I remember even a discussion
> where the point was made that registrants not normally using ASCII were
more
> error-prone than others, so we even had a cultural issue.
> Secondly, I have to say that I did not appreciate at all the fact that one
> Director who engaged in dialogue on this list has been vehemently
attacked.
> In my experience as Liaison, Veni is among the most available to dialogue
> and to listen to every point of view. Of course, he is entitled to have
his
> own opinion, which may differ from the people arguing with him, but that
> does not mean he is not listening. IMHO, it is a mistake for the GA to
burn
> out the relationship with people like him: it only reduces further the
> chance to be listened.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
> >From: sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [ga] ...a palpable hit
> >Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> > > In particular I'd certainly be interested in your position on the fact
> > > that this
> > > "tasting" exercise has demonstrated that the actual registry costs of
> > > processing
> > > a name registration are significantly less than the registry fee that
> > > ICANN
> > > requires registrars to pay, and which is passed through to internet
> >users
> > > to the
> > > tune of several hundred millions of dollars, every year, in excessive
> > > registry fees.
> > >
> > > Question: Do you feel that those of use who acquire names for full
term
> > > (i.e.
> > > one year or more) ought to pay a registry fee (of $6, going to $7+ for
> > > .com)
> > > even though the actual cost to the registry to process the transaction
> >is
> > > on the
> > > order of $0.02?  I.e. why should each of us who acquires a full-term
> > > domain name
> > > be forced to pay an extra %5.98, going to $6.98, especially when the
> > > tasters get
> > > it for free?
> > >
> > > Remember, that when we multiply this excessive fee over the entire set
> >of
> > > full-term registrants in .com alone we are talking about an excess fee
> > > that
> > > amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
> >
> >I'd be interested in all the ICANN Directors' views on this particular
> >question, but since he's made himself available, how about it Veni?
> >
> >Geia sou!
> >
> >Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/414 - Release Date: 8/9/06
>
>