Re: [ga] significant user representation

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

--- "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My interpretation of Chuck's comment to you last week is that he
> implies public comment should come from a publicly appointed
> spokesperson(s) to be valid, otherwise the opinion only represents a
> few so-called activists. His solution of empowering the public via
> more TLD choices is only a solution for a subset of the public
> community and not all registrants. Consumer choice is a perfectly
> acceptable solution in a truly free and competitive market
> environment, but in a single supplier market, it simply doesn't work.

Chuck would argue that if anyone disagrees with him, they must be
biased activists, and not representative of the unheard masses. Typical
debating tactic used in high school, usually on the losing side. CIRA
(.ca) allows every domain owner to register to vote  for its officers.
It would be a very simple exercise for VeriSign to do the same for .com
(even with a thin WHOIS), 1 vote per domain registrant, in coordination
with the various registrars. A few hundred thousand dollars of
programming, at most, or one could license the technology from others
(e.g. online shareholder voting, as done by various companies).

I'll bet a dozen donuts that you won't find a majority of .com
registrants willing to pay for 7% annual increases in registration
costs at the wholesale, or who want presumptive renewal, or who want to
give VeriSign free use of their traffic data. I doubt those "unheard
masses" are screaming for higher prices. Heck, maybe Karl or others
(not me) could even be elected as representatives of domain holders.

If you want a sense of what VeriSign likely considers "representative"
opinion, you only need read:

http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/15/2125118.html
http://texturbation.com/blog/2006/07/14/free2innovate-is-a-paid-corporate-pr-blog/
http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2006/07/15/steven-forrest-outed-as-bill-hobbs/

How about a comment, Chuck? Do you consider these kinds of bloggers,
who are supposedly pseudonyms and allegedly on the VeriSign payroll,
posting in support of VeriSign the kind of public input that ICANN
should be considering when making decisions?

I'd like to see VeriSign at least deny that he was ever on their
payroll, on the public record. Then, if there's ever a lawsuit or
Discovery (or maybe in the current CFIT lawsuit), and it turns out
differently, heads will roll.

Willing to stick your head out?

(my guess is Chuck won't respond)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/