[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] why we are being ignored

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and Vittorio and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

  I must agree for the most part with Vittorio's comments which
you kindly provided the archived link for Danny.

  The ICANN staff has played "Keep Away" for far too long
sense MdR 2000 in the introduction of new TLD's and has
decided to again hike the price for submitting the cost for
JUST a proposal for doing without any guarantee of such
proposals even being approved or taken seriously.  The
amount now is $50kUS, double the already outrageous
$25k US for a "possibility" of acceptance by what
many active participants know to be a corrupt
ICANN BOD and staff...

 INEGroup is on record in it's opposition to the "ICANN plan"
for the introduction of new TLD's as it is specifically
divisive and inconsistent with demand and free market forces.

  Danny's comments below in many ways reflect the huge
and strong amount of bad feelings and lack or trust that
that the misguided and misallinged ICANN structure
has engendered in and amongst the stakeholder/user
community as has been plainly evident for more
than 5 years now...

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Vittorio Bertola made the following comment on the ALAC discussion list:
> http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00321.html
>
> I have just read the draft request for proposals for new TLDs:
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-stld-rfp/new-stld-rfp-24jun03.htm
>
> What can I say... being a well mannered person, I will not use the terms
> that came to my mind while reading it, but there are a few of the points I'd
> like to make:
>
> - Restricting new TLD proposals to sponsored TLDs goes against common sense
> and the prevailing consensus in the community; furthermore, it goes against
> market competition and innovation.
>
> - Restricting new TLD proposals to year 2000 applicants is an unfair way to
> stifle competition. Three years on the Internet are a huge amount of time,
> and I am sure that there are new ideas and new people out there who would
> like to apply for new TLDs even if they didn't in 2000. Moreover, it is
> likely that most of the year 2000 applicants, due to the changes in the
> economical conditions, will not be interested in resubmitting an
> application, thus making it very easy for the reapplicants to win the domain
> using this sort of "preferential lane".
>
> - Furthermore, the list of year 2000 applicants is almost entirely composed
> by US companies. In practice, ICANN is preventing non-US entities from
> getting new TLDs.
>
> - For ICANN, being unable to start a regular service of examination and
> approval of new TLD proposals, after 5 years from its start, is a proof of a
> huge failure. By this, ICANN is effectively hampering innovation and
> evolution over the Internet. Approving a few new sponsored TLDs chosen from
> a list of ICANN-selected applicants is only a fig leaf that does not hide
> ICANN's complete failure in establishing a quick, effective and
> uncontroversial process for the creation of any kind and number of new TLDs
> - and its lack of will of doing so!
>
> - Asking for 25'000$ to re-examine slightly reviewed versions of
> applications for which the applicants already paid 50'000$ is unreasonable.
>
> - Our proposal about lower fees for non-profit applicants, as well as the
> proposal of 2-step fees (one for applying, one for winning), have been
> completely ignored. This fee policy effectively prevents any kind of
> non-commercial or bottom-up new TLD from being created, and makes the losers
> pay the negotiation and implementation costs of the winners.
>
> - Apparently, ICANN is completely ignoring the ALAC statements on the
> matter, and doing the exact opposite. It is true that we are not the GAC and
> do not have a right to explanations recognized by the Bylaws... and yet I
> would like to understand whether it makes any sense for us to spend all this
> time in advising the organization about the needs of the general public, if
> ICANN chooses to do the exact opposite of what we advise. I do not think
> that we own the ultimate truth or that all we say must be accepted by the
> Board, but at least I would like to get an explanation from Board members on
> the rationale underlying their choice.
>
> I would like to get other opinions on this document. Perhaps you do not
> share my views, but I think that we absolutely have to submit comments and
> to ask explanations about why we are being ignored.
>
> MY COMMENT FOLLOWS:
>
> Vittorio,
>
> the ALAC was designed solely as an instrument to placate the U.S. Department
> of Commerce.  You are being ignored because it has always been ICANN's
> intention to ignore concerns expressed by the general public.  In their eyes, you do
> not matter... you are not a stakeholder, and you have no representation on the
> Board of Directors.  Thank you for finally waking up to the reality that is
> ICANN, a trade association who sole goal is to protect the financial interests
> of its incumbent cartel members.  Maybe now you'll appreciate the difference
> between participation and representation.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de