<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) PricingThe problem is historically it IS the small vocal group that is reflective of what users want. It is historically true that only a small percentage are vocal about issues that affect the general population. How many people signed the declaration of Independence VS how many Americans were affected?
Tell you what, Chuck. Have these committees or the board give just this list one issue to resolve. Make it even a minor issue. Make our decision binding on it so we know our time has value. Then watch and see how we resolve the issue. I'd be willing to bet you money we can resolve it faster and more eficiently than current committees and groups are doing. Not tapping free resources like this is just plain bad management.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://icann.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Gomes, Chuck
To: kidsearch
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
Chris,
As I tried to communicate on a previous post on this list, I have always supported a means of user representation but have never seen a solution that has really represented a significant sample of users. I also recognize though that the same is true of some of the GNSO constituencies, so it is a problem that still needs a solution. Simply creating a solution that gives a new group a voice that is captured by a few activists seems to simply repeat what already seeing. That is why I stated before that I believe that giving users more meaningful choices of TLDs has the potential of giving users, at least registrants, a voice through their buying choices. I am not opposed to other approaches as well, but I believe that they need to be representative of the broader community of users and not just a small group.
Chuck
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: kidsearch [mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 01:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tiered (Variable) Pricing
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|