ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

RE: [ga] Increased foreign attendance

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [ga] Increased foreign attendance
  • From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=NHdGBpwoT+nHgIlm6mT0OBZf00BDKiWtU3gl3mD9NhLRRwVX2SAIp/cv3QnUBZQhi8QhoUvBx39EN7lDVwVQzdGbKQ6LbtBIzdY5aJ9BwzHH0WWaXM/dmu2p7QzOKCNXYBTW1tHozPbiK3LdXZ+ibmeWFr3899sBDEI+H1iGVh4=;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Debbie,

--- Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If ICANN ignored you and it cost them you need to ask why they
> ignored you
> as it does not make business sense to ignore an expert community.  I

As previously mentioned, it's because most of them are incompetent and
need to be replaced. You make the improper assumption that "business
sense" exists at ICANN. During a conference call with the Business
Constituency, I personally asked ICANN's lawyers if they did any
cost-benefit analysis of the VeriSign settlement, i.e. measuring what
the net present value cost of the 7% annual price increases was to
registrants (to be able to compare that to the cost of ongoing
litigation). They had no clue and would not answer. You can bet
VeriSign knew.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>