Re: [ga] Names Council vote

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

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  I am a little surprised at Peters position here as well.  Seems that maybe
he has been "Gotten to" by someone?  However given that the DNSO
Chair has instituted a BAN on my posting to the GAL list inappropriately
such a possibility is not to far fetched.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I am afraid nearsightedness has got the best here.  Some in this world and I
> expect I can include those in the .vi sphere would agree that a domain name is
> something of value to the holder.  I expect your livelihood depends on that fact
> being true and that all ccTLD managers respect that as a truth. Also that their
> jobs are partially a function of maintaining that value and the value of the
> ccTLD to the country.
> With that said. And I very much respect your monetary acumen, and personally
> felt your pain when scolded about your financial decisions in Melbourne.
> What you describe below is micro economics and countries are hopefully working
> on macro economics.  But you know this and so I wonder why the need for the
> faulty justification.
> The agreements you just endorsed are bad for the value of Domain Names as a
> whole for a myriad of reasons. By your actions you have potentially damaged the
> value of every ccTLD for the sake of saving an entry fee.  Not like you Mr. de
> Blanc, what is up?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
> > representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
> > assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe the
> > financial impact to ccTLDs.
> >
> > Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from VeriSign/NetSol
> > are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the registrar.
> > As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
> > registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost per
> > name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
> > ccTLD registries.
> >
> > >From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease in
> > the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.
> >
> > You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option C"
> > available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the board
> > to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to reflect a
> > more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Andy
> > Gardner
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
> >
> > >"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement
> > >or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
> > >existing agreement."
> > >
> > >Voting in favor:
> > >M. Mueller
> > >Vany Martinez
> > >YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
> > >M. Schneider (ISP)
> > >H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
> > >P. Sheppard (B&C)
> > >P. Kane (registrar)
> > >G. Forsyth (B&C)
> > >K. Stubbs (registrar)
> >
> > That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest that
> > they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.
> >
> > >Voting Against:
> > >Guillermo (IPCC)
> > >C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
> > >R. Cochetti (registry)
> > >T. Swineheart (B&C)
> > >P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
> > >E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)
> >
> > The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).
> >
> > Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
> > see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something that
> > might see them with more business?
> >
> > --
> > Andrew P. Gardner
> > barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> > --
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> 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 - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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