ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:14:02 -0800
  • Cc: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <20070310070710.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.d77be2631d.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tim and all,

  Are you sure you don't want to restate what you said below, because
it reads contradictory in and of itself?

Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Dominik, The first priority of the Reserved Names WG is to provide
> background and recommendations to the new gTLDs regarding the
> introduction of new gTLDs, specifically reserved strings at the top
> level. The terms of work for the WG also includs reviewing reserved
> names at the second level since such reservation requirements will
> affect any new gTLD operators that are selected. So it is not that
> ICANN has prioritized the release of single character names at the
> second level above everything else, it is included in the work as
> applicable to the introduction of new gTLDs. But of course, there's no
> doubt that various parties within the WG are primarily involved for
> that reason. And there's no doubt that the lobbying done by some of
> those parties is partly why that category of reserved names is
> included in the WG's terms of work.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>      -------- Original Message --------
>      Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction
>      From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
>      Date: Fri, March 09, 2007 2:51 am
>      To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>, "Danny
>      Younger"
>      <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
>      Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>      There is perhaps no reasons to reserve one-letter names in
>      general but
>      it's surprising that ICANN, instead of dealing with much
>      more important
>      and urgent agenda, is putting its effort into something that
>      again
>      smacks of sort of bargaining. We are talking about exactly
>      26 domain
>      names gaining extreme value during the long time they are
>      being
>      reserved, worthy of millions bucks each when auctioned. You
>      can be damn
>      sure most of the names once released will soon appear at
>      auctions and
>      all the profit will come to the pockets of those demanding
>      their release
>      at ICANN today.
>
>      So, not the names themselves but the order of importance is
>      what makes
>      me sick.
>
>      Dominik
>
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>      Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
>      Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:02 PM
>      To: Danny Younger
>      Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>      Subject: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction
>
>      On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:35:18PM -0800,  Danny Younger
>      <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote  a message of 71 lines which
>      said:
>      >> These recommendations should be thrown into the trash,
>
>      > Why? There were absolutely no reasons to reserve these
>      names.
>      > Therefore, there are no reasons to keep them frozen.
>
>      > I am under the strong feeling that some people will refuse
>
>      > anything coming from ICANN. Most of the time, ICANN is
>      accused of
>      > regulating too much. And now that a report suggest to
>      loosen the grip,
>      > always-complainers regret the old restriction?
>

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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>