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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

thanks tim. appreciate that.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tim Ruiz 
  To: ga 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:45 AM
  Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction


  Chris, the archives of the list for the new gTLD committee is at:
  http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/

  I haven't seen any transcripts or recordings available of the LA meeting itself.

  Tim 




    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction
    From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 7:56 am
    To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dominik Filipp"
    <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
    Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>,
    "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>


    Where can I find archives of that WG Tim? Like to see who is on it and what they had to say.

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

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Tim Ruiz 
      To: Dominik Filipp 
      Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Stephane Bortzmeyer ; Danny Younger 
      Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:07 AM
      Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction


      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?