Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

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

Kristy and all remaining assembly members,

  I have to agree that in some ways ICANN has been a destructive and
disruptive imposition on the Internet as a whole.  The Market's have
shown this lately, as have the money folks (Read Venture Capital).

  Some of the areas that have declined or been made worse as a
direct result of ICANN policy are as follows:

1.) Domain Names have been relegated or equated directly to
     Trademarks.

2.) Registration policy for Domain names has become a murky
     proposition and overly restrictive.

3.) No longer is there a standardized Whois.

4.) Privacy has been trampled upon directly.

5.) Registry security has gotten worse and this is escalating as a result of
      lack of Registrants to be able to adequately exercise their privacy rights.

6.) the UDRP has been a terribly destructive tool against small
     ecommerce business.

7.) Inconsistency in standardization practice and policy.

Kristy McKee wrote:

> I guess I've only been participating since 1995, so that doesn't make me an
> old timer.
>
> There should have been an option C, so that modifications could have been made.
>
> The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.  The rules were
> simple:  first come first serve.  Problems were easily resolved over
> trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> several steps backwards.
>
> You did not list any good thing they have done as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Thanks for trying.
>
> :)
>
> ~k
>
> At 08:08 PM 4/6/2001 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Kristy,
> >
> >>
> >>Please list the "good things" ICANN has done so all of us are made aware of
> >>their good behavior.  I think it's important to note because ICANN appears
> >>to not be interested in the good of the public; but only their direct
> >>sponsors and if they are infact doing good things I for one would like to
> >>know about it.
> >
> >
> >Once upon a time there was a company that had the complete monopoly over
> >the generic TLDs, as Registry and as Registrar ;>).
> >It seems ages, but it was just a couple of years ago when five new
> >Registrars were allowed to compete with NSi at the Registrar level, and
> >just few months ago the basis for the introduction of new generic TLDs has
> >been put.
> >
> >To the people like me, that have been fighting for years to achieve this
> >result, it seems an achievement. And it does not seem to me that it was so
> >obvious that ICANN could have achieved it: still in Cairo (one year ago) I
> >was discussing with other old-timers about what could have been the next
> >roadblock.
> >
> >We do (at least some of us do) criticize the "OptionB" contract, but we
> >have to admit that it is still a long way from the "OptionZero", which was
> >basically "NSi has it all".
> >
> >Regards
> >Roberto
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________________
> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

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