| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
New.net Responds To Lynn Plan
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 20 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
Thanks for taking time to make so many posts to this thread, all with the same malicious intent and without regard in any way to the merits of our proposals to reform DNS governance. Perhaps next time you could save space by grouping your comments in one post, so that others could spend more time actually addressing the substantive policy issues at stake than weeding through irrelevant garbage!
As for your dispersions, I regret to inform you that the speculative reports of New.net's demise on what may be your favorite authoritative news site -- the "Happy Fun Slander Corner" on f*****company.com -- are not true. We just completed our first year (on March 5), and remain bullish about the future. We recently launched our new registry platform that will enable third-party registrars to sell our names, continue to add millions of new Internet users with access to New.net names each month, continue to sell many new names and take renewals of previously-registered names, and we have several new commercial relationships in the works. We fully intend to continue building our business and participating in the growth of this industry.
As such, we also intend to continue trying to make significiant contributions to the development of public policy that affects the domain name industry, including ICANN related issues. We participate in ICANN processes in order to influence the development of policy within ICANN, and in other places where such policy is made. We do so because we disagree with the direction that ICANN has taken in the past and appears headed in the future. We issued a sigificant policy paper last June the elicited a very strong and lengthy response from the ICANN staff, which we regard as healthy debate. We hope that our latest paper similarly will stir significant debate about what type of ICANN reform should be implemented. Obviously, there are many persons who will find our proposals unacceptable, but I know that there also are many out there who consider Stuart Lynn's proposal unacceptable. For those of you who prefer to take anonymous pot-shots from the sidelines, I suggest that you might be more effective if you attempt to offer solutions in addition to criticism alone.
David Hernand
CEO, New.net
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
Re: New.net Still Exists?
by DavidHernand
|
|
4 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
|