Re: [ga] Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So, pretty much a case of everyone pointing at someone else as the source of 
the problem or the solution.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "'kidsearch'" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "'Dominik Filipp'" 
<dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>; "'General Assembly of the DNSO'" 
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Why the .XXX Domain is a Bad Idea That Won't Die


> Dominik:
> > > And are you sure this couldn't have happened? Be sure that
> > things like
> > > that would never be thrashing out during discussions or
> > meetings. One or
> > > two years have already passed away and yet the tasting has not been
> > > raised as an issue despite all that unceasing rush around.
> > >
> > > If I asked you what's happened on that recently at ICANN I
> > would bet you
> > > have nothing to say. Wish I was completely wrong in the assumption.
> > >
> > > So, after collecting the significant facts, I would say
> > this potentially
> > > good inspiracy theory could be pretty valid.
>
> Interesting.
>
> I see your point.
> My assesment is different: nothing happened simply because there has been 
> no
> interest in letting anything happen neither from the registrars, because
> they (some of them, at least) profit of the situation, nor from the
> registries, that have learned how to live with that and did not want to
> raise the issue formally. What is under discussion is precisely an element
> of the Registry/Registrar agreements, and the Board has estimated
> inappropriate to intervene in absence of a call by one of the two parties.
> Only very recently PIR asked the Board the permission to apply a fee for
> "excess registration", in an attempt to curb the phenomenon. At its 
> meeting
> on 2006-11-22, the Board, including the supposed conspirators from Google 
> et
> al., voted yes *unanimously* (minutes and voting record are public).
> My personal opinion is that the grace period should be abolished, because 
> we
> do have evidence that it does not fulfill the role that it was initially
> designed for. However, I believe that if the Board acted in absence of a
> request from one of the two parties, and in absence of a policy advise 
> from
> the GNSO, it would establish a dangerous precedent of ingerence in the
> market. Besides, I am sure that large part of the people who criticize now
> the lack of action would criticise tomorrow a decision by the Board not
> solicited by either party as proof of ICANN becoming a regulator.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Roberto