Hello, On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with be premium generics?
As I said yesterday, http://forum.icann.org/lists/bc-gnso/msg00263.html this is simply about the registrars and registries arguing about dividing a pie between themselves, taking the cream of the best names and auctioning them off or monetizing them for their own benefit, just like .mobi did with their premium list, just like .asia did with their auctions, etc. I doubt Mike O'Connor needs any education on the value of premium generics. :) Both sides (registrars and registrars) are offering the public and consumers a false choice, either Door #1 or Door #2. They don't want the public to be discussing Door #3, the solution the NTIA/DOC/DOJ endorses, namely competitive tenders for fixed periods, where registry operations are treated like any other procurement contract. Let me repeat the questions of yesterday (and some from 5 weeks ago), which remain unanswered, and number them: 1) On what basis is PIR claiming there is a "strong statement of concern" by the BC? 2) Who is asking if the BC has a view on this issue? 3) Is ICANN policymaking being done outside the official public comment periods? 4) There does not appear to be any open public comment period on this issue at ICANN. Where are "comments" being made? 5) What are people's conflicts of interest in regards to wanting the BC to take any position on this topic, and in particular, why take a position at *this* time when there are no open public comment periods asking for input? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/