Re: [ga] Reply comments to the gTLD Comments on .org

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear fine sir;

Please elaborate on this seemingly incongruent statement.

I guess I was mistaken in my understanding that we were looking for
divestiture at any cost.
Is it your contention that the goal has devolved to the lowest common
denominator of cost?
I agree with your telecom analogy, but am troubled by your fatalistic
conclusions (?).

How do you suggest we move forward taking in your, Neumans' and Jeffs'
input.

Your opinion is always valued here, please go out on a practical limb and
give some modicum of advise.

Sincerely,
Eric


Milton Mueller wrote:

> <with major snippage>
>
> That being said, when the Board makes its final selection among
> applicants, it seems to me to be impossible for the Board to ignore
> questions of competition policy. The whole process of removing
> control of dot org from Verisign was motivated by a desire
> to increase the number of players in the market and to reduce
> Verisign's dominance of the registry marketplace. If we were
> concerned exclusively with who was the low-cost provider
> we might not need to divest .org at all.

--
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