Re: [ga] GA contribution
- To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] GA contribution
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 07:47:36 -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:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=h+/fbP0rmUYTmyOfcu/hGE4ZT37t51f5COKPCBvjy8xyIniTNlLxw/I1N4wDZZpydppogWxCBB1qrA07OJFZI0W5f/sC/HcXcVFSyoI91UebjMj45ATsw91T/0yRv01scPVPt776vpiObxs/31y1ZcZSFO8Kzt7uDCyyZDu8uEg=;
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
After further review - - My point still stands. The GA should give a GA contribution on this. It was not hard to read the entire archives at http://forum.icann.org/lists/museum-renewal-2007/
The only IU/IDNH voices were crying in the wind.
Actually I think we could take the principals laid out in yours' and Karls' contribution, add to them, take into consideration Ruiz, Nevitt and Stahura. And then try to submit a comment that has some backing from our community. We do not have to rehash all the old arguments just get to the core and add evolving concept. The key new attribute of the comments would be that they have reasonable backing and popular support.
We have to stop being dissatisfied with putting our individual comments out there all by ourselves. It is not necessarily reasonable to expect that they be given full accord in that format. I am not suggesting ceasing contributing to the differeing forums but rather including work with the GA to get something accomplished.
Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The ICANN Staff rationale for this negotiated
settlement was already announced two weeks ago on the
Registrars list -- see
It's really a lousy decision between two parties that
fails to address the issues raised earlier by Tim Ruiz
and Jon Nevett -- see their comments at
Staff simply took out the word "register" in an effort
to placate the registrars, and reduced the number of
names "under direct management" by 1000 -- nothing
more than cosmetic surgery on the earlier proposed
The result of this agreement is already in conflict
with Recommendation 19 in the new gTLDs GNSO Report:
"Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars
in registering domain names" (although, in my view,
it's a really stupid recommendation that probably
violates antitrust laws anyway).
Karl Auerbach also makes a good point regarding
modifications to current registry contracts; his
comment is here:
--- Hugh Dierker wrote:
> This contribution from the community lacks our
> input. We have a 30 day comment window on this
> agreement. Is there anyone interested in leading a
> group to formulate our contribution.
> as Chair
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.