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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik and all,

  Good and honest response here Dominik.  Well done.  Don't
expect the same in return however...

Dominik Filipp wrote:

> Roberto,
>
> thank you for your response.
>
> But, honestly, isn't it stunning that after a year and after the meeting
> in Sao Paulo where this issue was officially, and I would say
> fearlessly, presented, neither the GNSO nor the ALAC (nor the other
> constituencies) have raised an official request for opening it as a
> regular issue. What, on earth, prevents them from doing so? As regards
> the registrars, I know positively that Bob Parsons from GoDaddy asked
> ICANN for dealing with it several times. As I am able to understand the
> attitude of the registries and, perhaps, some registrars, the others
> have simply failed. Roberto, you don't have to defend indefensible.
>
> Tha fact the Goodle guy voted for the re-registration fee for PIR says
> nothing. Firstly, PIR is not Verisign, and secondly, the number of such
> abused .BIZ domains is negligible and therefore commercially not
> interesting at all (for Google). All that voting could have been nothing
> but a mimicry.
> But if you were about to discuss .COM domains with Verisign and Google,
> believe me, you would have stayed pretty surprised.
>
> Regards
>
> Dominik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:48 PM
> To: 'kidsearch'; Dominik Filipp; 'General Assembly of the DNSO'
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827