RE: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are Unacceptable

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

My question had nothing to do with the amount of the application costs.
It was simply directed at where funding for application processing costs
should come from if they are waived as suggested by Chris, regardless of
how much the fees are.  Of course, if the fees are minimal, even
NGOs/NPOs should be able to afford them and waiver might not be needed.

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kidsearch [mailto:kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:35 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Karl Auerbach
> Cc: George Kirikos; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry 
> Operators are Unacceptable
> 
> It shouldn't cost $50,000 to review whether or not someone 
> who wants to
> manage a TLD is technically capable of doing so or whether they would
> threaten the stability of the Internet and that's all they 
> need to know.
> 
> With the registry contracts and in other areas they say they 
> have nothing to
> do with setting policy. with domain kiting, it's not in their 
> realm. They
> are a technical body. The same should apply for new tld creation then.
> 
> We ask for consistancy. Either ICANN does set policy and 
> standards beyoind
> the technical issues or they do not across the board. They 
> set policy in
> some areas and claim they cannot do that with other issues.
> 
> The UDRP is not a technical issue as an example. It was a 
> policy decision to
> favor trademarks over domain names. Nothing at all to do with 
> the stability
> of the Internet.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Karl Auerbach"
> <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> <org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:53 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are
> Unacceptable
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Where do you think funding of the application process costs 
> should come
> from if not from the applicant?
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> VeriSign Information Services
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of kidsearch
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:11 AM
> > To: Karl Auerbach
> > Cc: George Kirikos; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry
> > Operators are Unacceptable
> >
> > Then we definitely agree. The only reason I suggest ICANN be
> > involved in
> > this one is that I don't believe a $50,000 registration fee 
> should be
> > charged for someone wishing to create a public benefit TLD. I
> > wish ICANN to
> > waive this fee and make concessions for the creation of dot
> > NGO or NPO which
> > should be a restricted TLD and go to an operator that is a
> > public benefit
> > org.
> >
> > Not my org for those wondering if I have an agenda. I don't
> > wish to run it.
> > I just want there to be a legitimate nonprofit TLD and wish 
> there was
> > representation for public benefit nonprofits within the ICANN
> > supporting
> > structure.
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> > <org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:11 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are
> > Unacceptable
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think I must have failed to fully express what I wanted to say.
> > >
> > > It's my feeling that any "meaning" that is associated with
> > a TLD is the
> > > business of the users and operator of that TLD, not the
> > business of ICANN.
> > >
> > > So if you (.ewe?) or I (.eye?) want to start up a TLD and
> > say that it is
> > > for people who want to set up a mesh of brain wave 
> transfer servers,
> > > then that's for us to say.
> > >
> > > But it's not ICANN's role to sit up there on its throne,
> > looking down
> > > onto the internet and say "Let there be a TLD named .dog
> > for websites
> > > with content for dyxlexics".
> > >
> > > ICANN's proper role is merely to inquire whether an
> > operator, potential
> > > or real, is adhering to widely accepted, published internet
> > *technical*
> > > standards.  And for that they merely need a simple one page
> > checklist,
> > > and a very small ($50?) application fee to cover costs (assuming a
> > > proper sized ICANN rather than the bloated money pit that
> > it has become.)
> > >
> > > --karl--
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release
> > Date: 10/18/06
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release 
> Date: 10/18/06
> 
> 
> 
>