Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

Thank you Jeff for stating more clearly.

At 03:13 PM 4/6/2001 -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
>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