ORG & Verisign (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 8:25:27 AM, #1213)
Given the amount of protest, loud protest at that, (e.g. on ICANN's website message board) against the plans to change the 'charter' of ORG, should the ICANN Board not issue a statement *now*, that at least this part of the proposed 'deal' with Verisign is off?
Merely letting those who have an ORG name, keep it, is not enough, it seems. It will not be sufficient to avoid misunderstandings about the character of the entities behind an ORG domain: the old registrants (invited to register in ORG by Verisign...), who might be of any type (also personal or commercial) versus the new, which would be non-profits.
Changing ORG is bad, plain bad, I think for the stability of the internet. What is it good for, really, that cannot be achieved in other ways, e.g. a new TLD? I cannot shed the idea that the main (or only) reason for changing ORG's status is to make it impotent as a competitor to Verisign's COM. Some reassurance from the Board is really called for, to say the least.
VeriSign/NSI agreement (New Registry Agreements, 8:35:32 AM, #1214)
There were a significant number of comments on the ICANN public comment forum in opposition to the VeriSign/NSI agreement. Can the Board give the Internet Community an assurance that these will be given proper consideration and if so, how?
combined registry/registrar (New Registry Agreements, 8:36:18 AM, #1215)
Verisign/NSI is asking for a combined registry/Registrar Agreement. In this respect, what is the difference between the Verisign/NSI Agreement and the Image Online Design application which was rejected in November 2000?
(New Registry Agreements, 8:44:38 AM, in-room, #1216)
Why ICANN doen not recognized that they are helping to the inestability of the internet and to create users confusing on the global internet by realising a new top level domain "biz" which is very close to a existing ccTLD "bz" fr the country of Belize.
The Government of Belize has written to the ICANN board expressing their concern, but ICANN has fail to recognize their concern.
Inconsistent ICANN Policy (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 8:49:56 AM, #1218)
Kraaijenbrink: IOD goes against everything we’ve
worked on the last two years they join registrar and registry.
Sims (Melbourne March 11): White Paper does not
say anything about separation of registry and registrar.
a.) Please explain to the public ICANN's policy.
b.) For fairness, review IOD's TLD application.
(Other Business, 9:42:42 AM, #1220)
There are a number of organisations that provide third and higher hostname registrations, as opposed to the registration of second level domain names. Some of these organisations are as large if not larger than a number of ccTLD registries in the number of Internet users they service. An example of one such organisation is at www.dhs.org which services over 161,000 hostnames and more than 154,000 users.
Does the ICANN Board have any intention of recognising these types of organisations and will the Board attempt to involve such organisations more in the ICANN operations?
If there is any intention of increasing participation from such organisations, what would the Board consider an appropriate level of participation? Should such organisations form their own constituency under the DNSO or should their participation take another form?
Image Online Design/The .Web TLD (Other Business, 9:44:32 AM, #1221)
When will Image Online Design be allowed to include the .Web Registry into the 'A' root servers?
There seems to be clear demand for this potential TLD, much more so than the recently approved TLDs. Why not avoid backlash from alternative root organizations by approving the .Web TLD?
I believe there is a significant number that is very interested in this specific question. Addressing this question during this meeting would be greatly appreciated, and might quell the current frustration over newly added TLDs.
Thank you very much for your consideration, Brad Engelmann.
At Large Study Committee (Committee Reports, 10:31:14 AM, #1223)
Pindar Wong has remarked in earlier ALSC presentations the ALSC request for data access. When will the ICANN Board give the ALSC and when will the ALSC make available all election data necessary to start with independent election analysis efforts? If it does not intend to, what are the reasons?
(Committee Reports, 10:43:35 AM, #1224)
Why is the approach by the At Large Membership Study starting with a series of
open-ended questions to individuals and constituents, without the benefit of tentative guides?
It seems this approach, while supportive of openness and transparency, may
foster delay and contention. Suggest that
the committee at least publish some tentative initial guidance as to how an
At Large membership might assist ICANN fulfill its technical and administrative role.
Could the board please respond as to the rationale of the open-ended
question approach versus a more structured approach? Thank you.
Bob Hering
rh1@msn.com
TLD Applications (Introduction, 11:05:02 AM, #1225)
It has been reported there has been some financial difficulty on part of some of the new TLD registries and that this may be hindering current negotiations. Does the board feel now that the projections submitted last October were too ambitious? either in terms of low unit pricing or projected volume registrations?
thanks,
Ray Fassett
Reconsideration Requests (New Registry Agreements, 11:06:04 AM, #1226)
Will the board approve any reconsideration requests at this meeting, and if not, why? If it is seen that these reconsideration requests are dismissed based on no other reason, that only the 7 will be acted upon, will further harm the process...
Image Online Design has certainly a strong case, and ask that it be looked at carefully.
Sunrise, UDRP & Consensus (Status of TLD Agreements, 11:33:17 AM, #1227)
The WG tasked with examining sunrise proposals reported that no consensus existed.On what theory of implementation of consensus can ICANN require or permit a sunrise proposal to be used in the new gTLDs?
One key compromise in the UDRP was that both sides have access to judicial review of the decision in a court.A recent federal court decision by Judge Young in the corithinans.com case,however,holds that US Courts must disclaim the ability to decide cases brought by a losing domain name holder for lack of a cause of action, and perhaps also lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Given this reality, the UDRP of today turns out be a vastly different and far more unfair policy than the UDRP of a year ago. As there was clearly a consensus that having judicial review available for one side only was not acceptable, but that is what the UDRP apparently does in the USA now, wouldn't it be wrong to apply the UDRP to the new TLDs without first creating a new way to ensure parity of appeal rights?
IPv6 .COM Servers (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 11:45:32 AM, #1228)
What plans, if any, does ICANN and/or Verisign/NSI have to deploy "native" IPv6 .COM servers, and what additional fees will be required to be listed in those servers ?
Membership @ Large study (Other Business, 11:53:36 AM, #1229)
Twice ICANN has promised the US Government that there would be nine elected board directors (once at their inception and once when Esther Dyson promised a Congressional committee).
Why aren't the remaining 4 Board Members going to be elected BEFORE the At Large Study takes place?
At Large Membership Study (Committee Reports, 12:06:44 PM, #1230)
Why is the approach by the At Large Membership Study starting with a series of
open-ended questions to individuals and constituents, without the benefit of tentative guides?
It seems this approach, while supportive of openness and transparency, may
foster delay and contention. Suggest that
the committee at least publish some tentative initial guidance as to how an
At Large membership might assist ICANN fulfill its technical and administrative role.
Could the board please respond as to the rationale of the open-ended
question approach versus a more structured approach? Thank you.
Bob Hering
rh1@msn.com
Local and Global (Status of TLD Agreements, 2:17:10 PM, #1231)
Other than Technical, what are the global issues that might over-ride the local? In some ways isn't the very existence of gTLD's a global over-ride of the local?
ccTLDs (Other Business, 2:17:38 PM, #1232)
Why should the ccTLDs contribute to ICANN's cost of operation? What has ICANN done for the ccTLDs?
ccTLDs and RealNames (Reports on Internationalized Domain Names, 2:29:43 PM, #1233)
Will the ccTLDs resolve RealName keywords in their national roots? or will such resolution be limited to gTLDs?
CCTLDs (Other Business, 2:43:35 PM, #1234)
At what point does ICANN drop the charade about claiming that TLDs such as .TV, .AM, .FM and .MD are CCTLDs when in fact, a TLD is a TLD (i.e an ASCII string).
Clarification (Status of TLD Agreements, 2:48:06 PM, #1235)
Clarification. No need to read unless you want to.But eansure Vint sees it.
My question seemed ro require clarification. What I am saying is that the issues of ccTLD's are really issues about globalization and the existence of the "local".
So long as there are nation states, and legal systems therin, surely naming and identity systems need to by controlled and run locally. By having gTLD's that are, by definition, global, aren't we underminimg the existence of controlled local identity and naming systems.
In a sense I am questioning the very legitimacy of global gTLD's.
The heirarchical system of DNS(.root, followed by countries, followed by categorical divisions (org.cctld com.cctld net.cctld edu.cctld) was a great beginning. com, org and net were originally US TLD's not global.
Haven't we undermined the local by sanctioning global gTLD's? Or to put it the same way, haven't we flattened the namespace and undermined its heirarchical origins?
Clarification (Status of TLD Agreements, 2:48:22 PM, #1236)
Clarification. No need to read unless you want to.But eansure Vint sees it.
Part 2
Solutions? It's too late to roll the clock back. This would involve closing .com and insisting it be .com.us. Then all identities would be subsumed within countries as originally envisaged.
To go further in solutions would seem self serving so I will resist, but I do think there is a way for a global naming system and a local identity system to co-exist and prosper. We just don't have it today.
CCTLDS (Other Business, 2:51:49 PM, #1237)
Why is it that a so-called CCTLD can be run from someone's basement in a third-world country with little or no concern about the "stability of the Internet", when so-called gTLDs are put through absurd subjective criteria simply because U.S. commercial companies wish to sell to the market which clearly exists, and which CCTLDs sell to as they please. Why aren't gTLDs required to meat the same standards as the MINIMUM qualified ccTLD as opposed to the billion dollar .COM level of qualification ?
ccTLD Agreements (Other Business, 2:52:44 PM, #1238)
Is there plans to make ccTLDs in different languages?
for example chinnese charactors for chinese TLDs?
comment on DNSO review (Committee Reports, 2:55:42 PM, #1239)
With the mics closed early this morning, a couple of comments.
1. DNSO Review.
Must thank Theresa Swinehart for her work on the Task Force, and equally YJ Park for chairing the WG. Both have done tremendous amount of quality work.
As noted earlier, the DNSO is severely under performing, yet this widely held concern is not reflected in the Task Force report. Any future work on the DNSO review should be left to open bottom up processes not processes managed by the Names Council.
A suggestion to get this SO back on track and perhaps engender trust: the constituencies should provide information on a regular basis on their membership and geographic diversity. Constituencies should have open mailing lists with public archives, publicly available charters and membership requirements, including fees, voting methods, etc. Such information might help the board and community understand what the DNSO is, what work is being done, and in whose name.
Thanks,
Adam
CCTLDS (Other Business, 2:58:54 PM, #1240)
Some (so-called) CCTLDs have cumbersome multi-level restrictions such as .CO.NZ. as opposed to having names directly under .NZ. What does ICANN propose to do when Floating Root Technology allows for merged trees to allow for other parallel registries to fill in those trees directly below the CCTLD ?
Reconsideration Requests? (Introduction, 3:00:09 PM, #1241)
I would like to know when the reconsideration request for Image Online Design is going to be acted on....And also, if these requests are going to be denied based on a notion that only the 7 TLDs will be allowed, and no more...Does that not negate the effectiveness of this process, where relief is sought...
DOT.BIZ (New Registry Agreements, 3:05:07 PM, #1242)
Since ICANN spends an enormous amount of time claiming to be concerned about company's intellectual property, what does ICANN intend to do about our copyright and trademark claims for DOT-BIZ.com, REGISTER-BIZ.com and BIZ-REGISTRY.com in relation to any proposed deployment of the .BIZ TLD ?
NSI/Verisign compared to the New TLDs (New Registry Agreements, 3:06:40 PM, #1243)
The New TLDs have all these new sets of agreements... why should NSI/Verisign have special treatment with less agreements and less constrictions than the new TLDs... they had the monopoly before... so what... that monopoly has been broken and NSI/Verisign should comply with the new documents... I challenge the board to pressure NSI to comply with the a new agreement that comes closer to complying with the new TLD agreements!
Registry/Registrar separation (New Registry Agreements, 3:14:02 PM, #1244)
What mechanism will be assure separation of the
registry from the registrar?
DNS collisions (Introduction, 3:22:46 PM, #1245)
Now that ICANN has proposed the introduction of colliders in THE name space, what is your position on new.net's challenge as an alternate root and registry to ICANN with its 18 colliding TLDs? Are you concerned with this trend to consider only individual roots and ignore all others?
new TLDs (Introduction, 3:28:17 PM, #1246)
I think you should reconsider IODs application before continuing on with new TLD implementation. The new gTLDs are mediocre, at best, and will in no way promote competition to .com, .net. and .org like .web will eventually do.
Please reconsider IODs application immediately.
5 year term (Introduction, 3:28:27 PM, #1247)
Please clarify the term limitation contained in the agreement. Can the unsponsored TLD be put out for open bid at the end of the term at the sole discretion of the Icann without documented, reasonable cause and be potentially then awarded to a new applicant?
thanks,
Ray Fassett
U.S. Franchise Laws (Other Business, 3:36:40 PM, #1248)
Given the U.S. Federal Trade Commission Franchise Rule(s):
1. Franchisee uses the Franchisor's brand/logo etc.
2. Franchisee is controlled by the Franchisor.
3. Franchisee pays more than $500 to Franchisor.
Please explain why ICANN is immune from the U.S. Franchise laws in light of the contracts with the Registrars and new Registries which clearly encompass the above three points.
Introduction of TLD's (Status of TLD Agreements, 3:41:35 PM, #1249)
Many companies, and specifically companies registriars and registriars involved with the registry operators have offered various "schemes" with regard to advance placement in the "land rush period".
Does ICANN staff or the board have any policy at all regarding the proper "distribution" of the unsponsored open domain names?
NSI/Verisign compared to the New TLDs (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3:42:56 PM, #1250)
I submitted this in an incorrect topic... Please resubmit in New Registry Agreements com/net/org:
The New TLDs have all these new sets of agreements... why should NSI/Verisign have special treatment with less agreements and less constrictions than the new TLDs... they had the monopoly before... so what... that monopoly has been broken and NSI/Verisign should comply with the new documents... I challenge the board to pressure NSI to comply with the a new agreement that comes closer to complying with the new TLD agreements!
Verisign (New Registry Agreements, 3:43:38 PM, #1251)
Who is Joe Simms?
Wouldnt it be cheaper to hire someone in this role, than continue to pay the legal fees of $500,000 per quarter.
(New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3:51:19 PM, #1252)
On its conference call with financial analysts earlier this year, Verisign provided an overview of some of the things it was considering in the sale of the registrar business. One option presented on the call would have allowed the new purchaser of Verisign's registrar business to outsource all registrar and customer service functionality back to Verisign for a fee. In other words, under that scenario, the only thing that would likely change after the separation of the registry and registrar would be Versign's profit margin -- the technical services, customer support, trademarks, and all other aspects would remain the same.
If the new agreement is not approved, is that kind of arrangement a realistic scenario under the existing agreement? Under ICANN's view, what constitutes "legal separation" under the November, 1999 agreement? Is there disagreement between ICANN and Verisign on what the terms of a "legal separation of ownership" should look like?
ICANN/Verisign contract (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3:53:06 PM, #1253)
Why is ICANN so intent on closing the VeriSign deal in a such hurry, while its been in talks, unknown to anyone else - some might even say secretively - since last summer?
.org (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3:54:25 PM, #1254)
1) How will registrars enforce the proposed restriction of non-profit status?
2) What will happen to existing .orgs that are registered to individuals and for-profit businesses?
3) Do you believe it is fair to return to this restriction since it was previously lifted?
Comment/not question: To me, this seems like a short-term marketing ploy to increase interest in .orgs in the face of new TLDs release.
ICANN/VRSN Agreement (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 3:56:56 PM, #1255)
1 Why has the the DNSO's role in review and assessment of this agreement been circumvented and trivialized? Where is the bottom-up consensus for this new arrangement? Where is the time for proper review?
2. How can companies rely on ICANN's contracts, agreements and bylaws, when they are so mutable?
3. Why is ICANN staff proposing what amounts to market manipulation; ICANN is a technical coordinator.
Repurposing of .org (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 4:00:15 PM, #1256)
"The net result of this would be a .org registry returned, after some appropriate transition period, to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations." - http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
RFC1591 specifically addresses the TLDs currently in use and their categorizations.
"ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here."
RFC920 has a similar entry. Nothing there specifies any profit or non-profit status being inherent to the .org TLD. Where did this "originally intended function" come from?
Multiple .COM Registries (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 4:04:17 PM, #1257)
Isn't the real reason behind the recently disclosed ICANN - Verisign/NSI deal, the fact that artificial scarcity in the TLD name space, (created by ICANN and the DOC), has now made it clear that the .COM zone is essentially a "commercial root", and the COM zone will grow even larger and will be used to expand the name space via DLDs (Dash Level Domains) *-TLD.com as opposed to TLDs, thus making .COM the only TLD of interest, which will now encourage multiple .COM registries which will compete with ICANN and Verisign/NSI ?
Registrars - Commercial or Community Based (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 4:07:40 PM, #1258)
Has the ICANN Board considered dividing the Registrar and Registry models further? Would not the Internet community be better served if non-commercial community based entities looked after the TLD's as the Registrar's and the commercial interests were limited to the Registry side at the second and higher levels?
VeriSign agreement (Introduction, 4:10:19 PM, #1259)
Why wasn't the original VeriSign proposal last summer presented by the staff to the board, rather than being "handled" by staff, which only works for the board?
Verisign deal (Introduction, 4:17:41 PM, #1260)
What is the increase in funding from VeriSign to ICANN under the new deal?
VRSN agreement (Introduction, 4:22:33 PM, #1261)
It seems to me that Verisign is being entirely straightforward here. It has an existing agreement. That is AGREEMENT. it is signed. It is now agreeing to modifications in that agreement under certain conditions.
ICANN clearly wins on .org. .net seems neutral. .com would likely stay with VRSN anyway. So that's neutral too.
ICANN also gets $5m for .org and $200m spending commitment. Both pluses.
VRSN is in its rights to say the old deal stands unless the new one is agreed.
There should be no confusion. The new deal is better for ICANN and those who would like the entire infrastructure to progress, whilst also providing some stability and predictability for VRSN.
Isn't this a real WIN-WIN?
allow correct ICANN processes (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 4:23:05 PM, #1262)
Mr. Sclavos began his comments to the meeting claiming he VeriSign wished to be regarded as the most trusted company on Internet. He could demonstrate that commitment by agreeing a delay, subject to DoC agreement of course, to allow for Internet community to study and comment. As the Names Council noted yesterday, this contract may be wonderful, we just want the opportunity to judge and follow appropriate ICANN processes.
Thanks,
Adam
multiple .COM/NET/ORG's (Introduction, 4:23:15 PM, #1263)
Under the present stance taken by ICANN, what is your projection for other roots establishing duplicates of .com/net/org? If it is true that ICANN is responsible for only it's root, then is that not true for all others, including other countries and private/public entities? Can you envision a dozen versions of .com?
com/net/org portions (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 4:23:41 PM, #1264)
.Com domains compromise of more than 65% of domains names currently on the internet...
.Net compromise about 30% of the domain names currently on the internet...
.Org compromises about 15% of the domain names currently on the internet...
If Verisign is going to give up .org and POSSIBLY give up .Net it doesn't sound like they are going to be giving up as much as they would be with the current agreement where they need to devest of their Registrar or Registry by May 10th 2001
Also there is nothing stopping NSI becoming a registrar for .org or .net if they devest of those...
In "Option A" VeriSign must devest of basically 50% of their organisation... in "Option B" they only must devest of approximatelly 20% of their organisation... looks like NSI/Verisign is getting a much better deal out of Option B than A!
NSI Registrar exclusive agreements (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 4:32:34 PM, #1265)
Last time around I believe there was a period
of time setup in the NSI/ICANN/DOC agreement
in which NSI-the-registrar was unable to make
exclusive agreements with its customers. At the
end of that period NSI was still in a dominant
market postion, whereas today, it may not be
so dominant. If a new "option B" agreement is
entered into, will it include a new period whereby
NSI-the-registrar allows its customers to withdraw
from their exclusive NSI agreements, now that
there are more competitive alternatives to choose
from?
Competition for ICANN (Other Business, 4:38:13 PM, #1266)
Given the fact that several companies are currently developing alternate roots, additional TLDs, new protocols, expanded address spaces, etc., and given the arrogant monopolistic posture of ICANN, (not Verisign/NSI), it appears clear that true competition will have to come for ICANN to create a level playing field. Given that, how can ICANN compete on that playing field as a non-profit company ? How can ICANN ignore strict IRS regulations concerning competition with for-profit companies ? Finally, does ICANN plan to convert to a for-profit once they and Verisign/NSI are free of their contractual ties to the U.S. Government ?
ICANN/VRSN Agreement (New Registry Agreements, 4:59:18 PM, #1267)
If the stated goal of this change is to harmonize all the registry agreements, then wouldn't that best be accomplished by recompeting .COM, .ORG and .NET through a process (hopefully better than the one just completed) including a $50K non-refundable fee?
How would the threat to change the nature of .ORG square with the UDRP decisions that have transferred identical or confusingly similar .ORG and .NET names to trademark owners? Recognizing that true infringement might still occur as regards website content, for which there are legal remedies, would .ORG domain name registrations be off-limits to trademark owners?
(New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 5:08:07 PM, #1268)
I have been given the opportunity to review the Guava doc released by Chase who is responsible to handle the sell off of NSI Registrar.
Essentially, the the sell off the registrar but keep the whole operational intent by transfering it to Verisign Web Presence and then making VWP a 'reseller'. Beautiful play, Giving up "registrar" on nothing but in name.
If this is the path of Option A, as much as I hate to admit, ICANN is in the position which has no choice since it did fullfil the requirements specific in the 1999 contract. However, what ICANN and the at large members need to review is the spirit of the contract has been fullfil.
-James Seng
Verisign contract revision. (Introduction, 5:11:14 PM, #1269)
Dear Board Members:
Can someone explain a legal matter for me?
1. As I understand it, ICANN is subject to the "Brown Law", which requires that all meetings must be open to the public.
2. ICANN will not decide on option A or B tomorrow during their open meeting.
3. ICANN will make any decision on amending or maintaining (or finding a satisfactory option "C") later this month, perhaps by 31 March.
4. Will the DNSO have an adequate opportunity to provide its input by the end of the month? I think it is clear that the DNSO process has never operated on such a truncated time schedule. Therefore, any vote of the Board will be imposed from above rather than from "the bottom up", as we would prefer.
I have a little saying I append to the bottom of my Email posting from time to time.
"It doesn't do any good to run if you don't start on time".
[To be completed later, Bob Connelly]
At Large Study Committee (Committee Reports, 5:12:44 PM, in-room, #1270)
[This is the comment I prepared this morning from the floor mike, curtailed due to time constraint]
As a former member of Membership Advisory Committee(MAC) and now a member of NAIS (NGO and Academic ICANN Study), an independnt study group, I likt to point out that:
The concept, structure and function of AtLarge were discussed and reached the consensus through careful study of its direct relationship with SOs.
MAC Berline Report clearly indicated this as follows:
"(Principle) 1. At-large membership should primarily represent those individuals and organizations that are not represented by the Supporting Organizations (SOs)."
Therefore, if the study committee is going to consider the basic framework of At-Large Membership, then, I think, the committe must also deeply consider the basic framework of SOs and ICANN's overall decision making process and representation mechanism as a whole.
Verisign contract change, continued (Introduction, 5:14:52 PM, #1271)
Continuing prior posting]
Dear Board Members:
Balance of prior posting:
There have been many postings dealing with the deadline for Verisign to divest itself of either the registraR or the registrY business by May of this year. These postings have not been in a vacuum. Certainly ICANN has been aware of these discussions and the expectations of the Internet community in general.
In my opinion, it was incumbent upon the ICANN staff to have let interested and affected parties be aware promptly that they were considering abrogating this provision of the DOC/NSI/ICANN agreement of November 1999. Even if it can be shown that option B is in the best interests of the Internet community (which I am willing to agree *could* be the case), I believe the Board should reject option B until all of the necessary details can be vetted before these interested parties.
[More follows]
Verisign comments continuing. (Introduction, 5:15:46 PM, #1272)
As for the allegation that the potential buyers of the NSI RegistraR business would immediately fire all the employees, that they only wanted to buy the customer database, the allegation is so simplistic that it is not worthy of being considered by this body.
Apparently, concurrent with these discussions within DNSO (based upon our legitimate expectations that the DOC/NSI/ICANN agreement would be honored), ICANN's staff and agents have been negotiating with Verisign to abrogate what many of us in the Internet community consider to be in the best interests of this community. If my suspicions are correct, I think it is time for the staff to go back to the drawing board.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob Connelly
Changing "B" not possible? (Introduction, 5:21:35 PM, #1273)
Dear Board Members:
Regarding changing A or B to C, remember, we were told in November of 19899 that we could not make any changes to the DOC/NSI/ICANN. All parties had made major concessions and any changes would upset the equilibrium.
Nonetheless, a bunch of us got together than evening and came up with a list of seven changes we considered essential.
The following day, we presented them to the Board -- and all of them resulted in affirmative changes in the "unchangable agreement".
Respectfully submitted, Bob Connelly
ICANN has NOT Created Competition (New Registry Agreements com/net/org, 6:24:40 PM, #1275)
ICANN has not created competition. What has evolved since 1995 is that Price Regulation ($6) has been imposed on the 100% monopoly position of Verisign/NSI, no competition has been introduced. What has been introduced is a MLM-Multi-Level-Marketing structure of Registrars, franchised by ICANN. This SMALLER group of Registrars has replaced a large number of ISPs and web developers who used to be the "registrars". Those registrars self-organized in a bottom-up manner and no ICANN was needed and no fees (taxes) were paid to ICANN. How can ICANN claim to have increased competition ?
RACE (Other Business, 6:34:09 PM, #1276)
VGRS's own Multilingual DNS FAQ states, "domain.com for a given language will be stored as bq--gde6djht.com." Since RACE describes an algorithm, the converse is true: bq--gde6djht will be rendered as "domain" in a given language. Which means that someone really clever might register in ASCII domains that, when RACEd, correspond to, say, famous names or trademarks in a given language.