Re: [ga] sTLD Premium Names

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all,

  I agree with your conclusion as to opening up the TLD name space.
I disagree with part of your premise.  The idea of wheather or not
the stockholders make money is not material if the registry has signed
a contract which governs how they are contracted to manage a registry.
The compatency of any registry's lawyers that allows any section of
their clients contract to be abrogated in any way is also only somewhat
material.  What is far more relevant and material is, has ICANN properly

performed it duty in policing it's accredited registries contractual
oblications and followed it's own policies?  I believe the answer is
clearly
NO, in this case at least.

  Therefore I believe Danny has the superior and correct argument,
and is seeking the right answers.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Danny,
>
>   I question here whether your final point is correct. You lay out how
> the system is being manipulated to the benefit of stockholders. You
> then conclude that they must be inept because they do not play by the
> rules. The only rule for them is to make money. (and you cannot make
> money in court or jail). It would seem they have some very competent
> lawyers.
>
>   This whole problem if in fact it is one, is caused by failure to
> open up the TLD namespace.
>   I seem to remember that being the primary goal of the original mou
> with the DoC.
>
>   Eric
>
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   Karl,
>
> The relatively new Registry Services Evaluation Policy
> was the direct result of the technical stability
> issues raised in the wake of SiteFinder.
>
> The policy calls for disclosure on the part of
> registries prior to the launch of new services or
> changes to the architecture or operation of an
> existing TLD... the goal, if I recall correctly, was
> to avoid "astonishment".
>
> I'm not arguing in favor or against premium names or
> passing any judgment as to whether this is an area
> within the scope of ICANN (in fact, premium names are
> already a part of the .mobi contract); my primary
> concern was that (1) a plan was announced by a
> sponsoring organization (that meets the registry
> services definition) that apparently still hasn't been
> vetted by the RSEP; and (2) that potentially impacted
> parties (registrants) have an opportunity to comment
> on what may be an upcoming proposal to reserve a
> valuable block of names for the primary financial
> benefit of a registry operator.
>
> If all registries start reserving valuable blocks of
> the namespace for their own aggrandisement, then the
> trusteeship of the TLD sponsor is rightfully called
> into question.
>
> Finally, the RSEP may determine that this proposal
> raises no issues... that's OK... but I found it odd
> that the plan would be "announced" by the .travel folk
> and yet half a year later it still hasn't been
> submitted to the RSEP.
>
> That raises in my mind concerns as to whether
> .travel's new management really knows what they're
> doing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obediance 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