Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) PricingChuck, one of the problems many of us have is that registries and other interests are represented on the ICANN Board and in every single supporting organization and committee while no one is there to really represent users. I know many who also represent registries, IP interests, and other businesses BELIEVE they represent users, but they don't. That is the bottom line and the main issue.

Chuck, we do not want you and the others deciding for us. We want representation that will listen and allow users to have real input on these decisions. By not doing so, ICANN, the GNSO, and every one of the other organizations are just bogus puppets for big companies who want to dictate policy to the rest of us. The attitude has always been that you guys need to make these decisions for us because we just don't understand the big picture.

You want to understand why people on this list are distrustful and sometimes even nasty about it. That is why. It is arrogance to think that any of the decisions made by the ICANN Board without true user participation is anything but a complete farce.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://icann.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gomes, Chuck 
  To: Karl Auerbach 
  Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 9:44 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing


  Karl,

  I am not in the least suggesting that any one group of interests should dictate policies or serve as the legislature of the Internet.  A personal opinion I have held for some time is that the GNSO Council  is not a legislative body but I believe there are some that treat it that way.  The main point I wanted to make is this: when people refer to ICANN, they often mean ICANN staff and Directors when in fact it is everyone who is involved in ICANN processes and there are many within that broader definition who support a very regulatory ICANN.

  When you talk about the direction ICANN is going with respect to new TLDs, I assume you mean the new gTLD PDP committee.  As a member of that committee representing registries, I am actually encouraged with the overall direction it is going and am even hopeful that for the first time we may actually see much more open expansion of the gTLD space.  I am even optimistic that TLDs such as .web and .ewe will have a fair shot.  I know we still have a long ways to go and ultimately the ICANN Board has to approve the final plan, but I sincerely believe that there are good chances that big changes may occur.  I am sure that the ultimate process approved will not be perfect but I think it will have some significant improvements including some that will address yor concerns.

  Chuck


  Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

   -----Original Message-----
  From:   Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
  Sent:   Friday, September 01, 2006 09:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
  To:     Gomes, Chuck
  Cc:     ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject:        Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing

  Gomes, Chuck wrote:
  > With regard to tight regulation of business practices, don't you think
  > there are quite a few people in the community who want the tight
  > regulaton of business practices?

  To which I reply - why should they be allowed to dictate the rules to
  the rest of us?  Who made them the legislature of the internet?  What is
  the source of authority?

  J.D. Rockefeller felt that his ruthless suppression of divergent
  business practices in the oil refining and distribution industry (there
  was a definite reason why it was called *Standard* Oil) was in the best
  interests of consumers and the industry because it eliminated the
  wasteful effects of competition.

  His position has been soundly rejected by nearly every country on the
  planet.

  It was more than a century ago in the US when we decided that
  Rockefeller's philosophy was contrary to our national principles.

  The idea of competition contains within it the notion that those who
  don't fit into the mold established by the incumbents don't need to ask
  permission from those incumbents.

  So what I am saying is that ICANN is trying to swim upstream against
  well established national policies against guilds and
  groups/combinations that try to impose their will on the marketplace and
  the products, services, vendors, and sales terms and prices of that
  marketplace.

  Yet that is what ICANN is doing with regard to new TLDs and the
  excessive regulation of existing TLDs.

  When, for example, with IOD get to go forward with .web?  They've lost a
  decade, including the .com bubble - the hypothetical lost revenue is
  very large.  And will I ever have a realistic chance of getting my .ewe
  into the ICANN/NTIA root zone?

  I draw one exception - protection of those people who have been locked
  into TLDs (Thomas Rossler just wrote a nice concise description of this
  effect at
  http://log.does-not-exist.org/archives/2006/09/01/2082_on_registry_pricing_persistence_and_stability.html#more
  )

  The sooner we get enough real diversity in domain name product offerings
  that the consumer can be said to have had a real choice to get the
  product he/she wants, the sooner we can transform that kind of
  protection into a fading legacy.

                  --karl--










------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 9/1/06