| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Reform Plans
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Please describe a funding method that you would not be call "a domain name tax." -- Bret
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
No, it's not just you, though comparing him to Crispin and Crocker is out by orders of magnitude. I've noticed that Bret from time to time seems a bit slow on full disclosure, but that's a concept Crispy Crock wouldn't recognize if they found it in their cereal. I'm a bit peeved about this and this, for example. I mean, who the hell cares if the applicant wants to give excess funds to charity? Is it better to pay top management obscene salaries? Is it better to be like NeuLevel and have the CEO hire a relative to do fancy interior decorating? Is it better to be like Veri$ign and spend it on campaign contributions? If, and I know it's a big if, the successful .org bidder can charge less wholesale than Veri$ign does for comnet, and still show a profit, and then choose to put some of that profit into good works, where's the harm? No harm, no foul. Full disclosure: I have zero personal or financial interest in any .org bid. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re: Fausett
by RFassett
Sunday June 23 2002, @02:49AM
- Re: Fausett
by joppenheimer
Monday June 24 2002, @05:57AM
- Re: Fausett
by lextext
Monday June 24 2002, @08:12AM
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
- 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
and win what, exactly? "Winning" would also assume a judge could determine the complaintant's application was consitent with ICANN's defined qualifications and paramters for entry. But, since ICANN does not state what these are, this would be a gamble.
Also, since ICANN's position is that it can not be determined at this point that new TLD's pose a risk to the stability of the Internet addressing system, certainly the complaintant can not expect a judge to rule for automatic entry. This would be another big gamble.
Do you think ICANN understands these concepts fairly well to the extent that the legal system is a fairly weak mechanism for the applicants to seek third party recourse? I certainly do.
The day ICANN defines exact criteria on the part of the applicant for entry and removes "stability to the addressing system" as a reason to artificially constrain competition is the day the legal system may then become a viable third party mechanism for parties deemed to have been harmed by "the process." But, don't hold your breath on either of these 2 things any time in the near future. It is by design. When a member of Congress states publicly that "ICANN seems accountable to no one", this is what he means.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 6 replies beneath your current threshold. |
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
|
