Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are Unacceptable
Section 2.3 - I see that they require adherence to EPP. Why? That implies that they are mandating a registry/registrar model of doing business. That's quite a leap. Section 2.4 - Why should new applicants have to adhere to "consensus policies"? That is simply another indication of ICANN's "guild" mentality in which the incumbents get to dictate the rules to newcomers and thus prevent competition and innovation that might upset the incumbents. Might one say, as I often do, "combination in restraint of trade"? Section 2.5.2.3 - while "localhost" might cause some problems, there is no reason to exclude .exe as a trigger for executables - did everybody forget that in Microsoft's world the string .com also means "executable". In other words the TLD .com fails section 2.5.2.3. 2.5.2.4 is downright dangerous - it imposes a lowest common denominator. And as for deceiving the public - might .cat deceive the public who generally consider "cat" to mean a small feline? And .coop to mean things that hold chickens? 2.5.3.2 - Why should trademark holders get this wonderful elevation in rank? 2.6 - That is a flat out improper imposition on the business models. For example .ewe doesn't have registrars. There is a word for this: "featherbedding". 2.7 - Nobody has ever been able to say how a TLD can make the internet wobble. It may make users of names in that TLD unhappy, but since when has ICANN become a consumer protection agency? 2.8 - Why should ICANN inquire whether an applicant has the ability to "meet its business ambitions"? One would think that that is the role of the marketplace. etc. This whole thing smacks of restraint of trade. It's lawsuit bait - and not only will ICANN end up being a defendant but so will every company in the DNS business that has participated in the making of these restraints on free competition and innovation. --karl--
|