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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All points made perfectly. Again, consistancy. ICANN cannot choose to
dictate policy, social, and business issues in some areas and in others say
they are only a technical body without that ability when they do not want to
do something.

The game is rigged, plain and simple. That is not an attack. It's the truth
as I can see it according to the actions that have been taken and by those
actions not taken thus far.

So my question to any board members or staff members is "What do you believe
ICANN is responsible for and capable of where approval of new TLDs is
concerned?"




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "elliot noss" <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>; "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
"ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are
Unacceptable


>
> Ah yes, a ".bin" file - which turns out to be a MS Word formatted file.
>
> 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--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.7/488 - Release Date: 10/19/06
>
>