RE: [ga] significant user representation

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I learned years ago not to try to have meaningful dialog with people who
make statements like this: "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."  So you are correct George: no response from me.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 6:50 PM
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] significant user representation
> 
> 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-pai
> d-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/
> 
>