| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN Reform should be
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 33 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
>> No, the only benefits to not allowing more competition is that the speculators maintain their value and the existing registries maintain their monopolies. <<
I think when you advocate more TLDs to reduce the harm done by squatters and speculators, you may be solving the wrong problem.
P.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re: ICANN Reform should be
by notmyopinion
|
|
|
|
|
That's not the reason I advocate more TLDs, even if it's a side effect.
The reason I advocate more TLDs is because, until now, only existing players have gotten them, they hold an illegal monopoly on the market, and ICANN is illegally regulating the market to the benefit of themself and their friends. ICANN is perpetuating an artificial scarcity that should not exist.
That's it.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
