Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

More Applicants = More $$$ for ICANN, not more TLDs approved, regardless of
the applicant's qualifications. In the last round they could have at least
been honest and said they would approve just 7 tlds before asking for the
money. They didn't because they are trying to turn it into a lottery where
they get to choose the winners. They can't even do that in Vegas.


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "sergio.baccaglini" <sergio.ba@libero.it>
To: <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:19 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall


> > I have to disagree with this. ICANN was set up to be a *technical
> > coordination* body, not the decider of business models and financial
> > capabilities. What is necessary in order to excute on that mandate is
> > effective escrow. Effective escrow of data would limit the exposure to
an
> > interruption of service that a business failure might cause, while
keeping
> > ICANN out of peoples bank accounts and business plans areas which they
> > have no business being in.
>
>
> Good points Patrick,
>     But the *technical coordination* body can loose its technical aspect
if
> it has to decide about who has the chance to be a registry. As soon as a
> decision has to be made about who can be a registry there there is
something
> more than tech matters.
> Consider for eg the fact that 100 applicants or more are in the next gTLD
> slection round. Each of 'em asks for say 2 TLDs. If all of them have the
> "effective escrow" you speak about, there would be at LEAST 200 new gTLDs.
> Confusion at least for the consumers, maybe a company could get .pid and
> another one .pids. (Can you choose wich one has the right to be a
registry?
> Both of 'em?) And what about multiple gTLDs requested by different
> companies? First come first served?.
>
> I have to disagree because I can't think of ICANN as a simple tech body,
> UDRP is an example. Even if the effective escrow of data is a good point.
>
> Thanks Patrick.
>
> S b)
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html