Re: Why ICANN should think (Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] RE: [ga] Can you give me some arguments, why is it a bad idea?)

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@schneiders.org>
Cc: "Bruce James" <bmj@keyname.net>; "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>;
<dassa@dhs.org>; <ga-roots@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: Why ICANN should think (Re: Re[2]: [ga-roots] RE: [ga] Can you
give me some arguments, why is it a bad idea?)


> Hello Marc,
>
> Friday, June 01, 2001, 5:45:22 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, at 17:18 [=GMT-0700], William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> Friday, June 01, 2001, 6:33:46 AM, Bruce James wrote:
> >>
> >> > ""another root "" Would be asking for trouble from the other
Alternate
> >> > Roots. The whole idea is to come to an "understanding" with the
Alternate
> >> > Roots so we can co-exist.
> >>
> >> The alternative roots are in competition with each other, Bruce.
>
> > Are they really 'at large'? Some may be. Most are not, and if
> > they are, it has nothing to do with making money, this
> > competition. There is a lot of work on the way moreover to get rid of
> > the very few colliding TLDs.
>
> No one said it had to be about money.
>
> >> There is no reason for competitive root systems to come to any
> >> accommodation with competitors, unless they gain something from the
> >> relationship.
>
> > Stability, stability, stability?
>
> ICANN has that without the alt.roots.  ICANN has that by completely
> ignoring them.

Is that rumbling I hear? Stability? ICANN has that now? Counting you,
William, I think I know of about 4 or 5 other's who believe that. Access to
other roots IS happening, HAS been happening, WILL be happening. You know
this to be fact. ICANN introdused colliding TLDs and intended to do so,
intend to go ahead with them, and are ignoring the consequences. Many of the
other roots are trying to get rid of colliders, the opposite of what ICANN
is doing. Do you maintain still that ICANN is the one organization that is
seeking stability?

>
> The reason is because collectively even they don't have enough
> visibility or use that if they were closed down completely tomorrow it
> would be a serious enough incident to threaten any kind of stability.

Have you seen New.net's numbers? Of course I know you have. But do you see
what they mean? Visibility. It may or may not be New.net that does it but
someone will. Anyone who knows anything about marketing sees that
profitability exists there. People saw profitability in porn too. Where
there is profit there will be companies there pushing for more. Some of them
WILL succeed. That is inevitable. The ground is shaking and the fat lady is
singing. ICANN had better retract some of the promises they made to those
heavy financial contributors.

That is the model that works for the USG, not for ICANN.

>
>
> > Did I just hear that the ccTLDs want 3 board seats? Things are
> > moving. It might get messy.
>
> Don't assume too much.  :)

That's right stick to your guns there William. You are consistant.

>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>

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