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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From the updated GNSO PDP Recommendations Summary
posted yesterday:

Principles 

d) That a set of technical criteria for a new gTLD
registry applicant minimises the risk of harming the
operational stability, reliability, security, and
global interoperability of the Internet.

f) That a set of business capability criteria for a
new gTLD registry applicant provides an assurance that
an applicant has the capability to meet its business
ambitions.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00234.html

Read the full document to see the degree to which the
GA views have been ignored by the GNSO constituencies.

best regards,
Danny



--- elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> to be clear this is not the BoD but the current
> gnso-sanctioned process.
> 
> On 19-Oct-06, at 1:57 PM, kidsearch wrote:
> 
> > lol. Now that's funny I don't care who you are.
> ICANN BoD thinking  
> > it has
> > the knowledge to decide which tlds are worthwhile
> and which or not is
> > laughable at best. The people at Xerox passed on
> the mouse and HP  
> > passed up
> > the pc. I'm not thinking the BoD members are
> smarter than these  
> > CEOs. You
> > cannot predict what will work or not work down the
> road. If you  
> > think you
> > have that knowledge you are a fool. So why is
> ICANN reviewing  
> > business plans
> > to see whether or not a tld is viable or not?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "elliot noss" <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "ga"
> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org
> Registry Operators are
> > Unacceptable
> >
> >
> >> don't forget whether they thought that your
> driving was a "good
> >> thing" for the world (whatever that means).
> >>
> >> On 19-Oct-06, at 12:29 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >>
> >>> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Where do you think funding of the application
> process costs should
> >>>> come
> >>>> from if not from the applicant?
> >>>
> >>> I suspect that most of us would say that the
> applicant ought to
> >>> cover the expenses of processing the
> application.
> >>>
> >>> However many (perhaps most outside of the IP
> community) would say
> >>> that the current expenses are orders of
> magnitude too high because
> >>> the inquiry that is being made by ICANN is not
> appropriately  
> >>> focused.
> >>>
> >>> Imagine if you went to your state's department
> of motor vehicles to
> >>> get a driver's license.  And instead of
> determining whether you are
> >>> of legal age and able to drive, they insist on
> doing, and you
> >>> paying for, an investigation of your lifestyle,
> your finances,
> >>> whether you attended all sessions of all your
> classes in college
> >>> (only college graduates need apply), and require
> you to present a
> >>> lifetime set of dental x-rays and a letter of
> recommendation from
> >>> the minister of your church (agnostics need not
> apply.)
> >>>
> >>> ICANN's only proper inquiry is whether the
> applicant will abide by
> >>> written, broadly accepted technical standards. 
> That's something
> >>> that is as simple as a short checklist - see for
> example the rather
> >>> short and concise IANA list of items for proper
> technical operation
> >>> of a TLD.
> >>>
> >>> The cost of that simple evaluation ought to be
> only a few dollars -
> >>> roughly 1/1000th of what ICANN is charging now.
> >>>
> >>> --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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com