RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Would you define "obligations to share holders as corporate greed?"   If we
are comparing capitalistic approaches to more socialistic approaches, take a
look at which have fared better in the world's economies.  Neither is
perfect, but economic systems with real incentives for business have tended
to fare much better.  I suspect that that is why economies all over the
globe have been moving toward systems that are more market driven.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 9:33 PM
To: William X. Walsh
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

"William X. Walsh" wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone is worried about anything, Marilyn.

William, what Marilyn is not telling us is that
*she* and others like her are worried.  Actually,
it's not really Marilyn per se, she's just another
instrument and mouthpiece for corporate greed, as
is Chuck Gomes and the rest of them.  Don't kill
or maim the messengers, but do examine the
message... 

So, what are they worried about?

Check out http://www.att.org and see...  The good
rabbis are selling software titles and I'll bet
the upstanding folks at http://www.att.com get no
cut from the proceeds.  If that's not enough,
check out http://www.amazon.org/ and see that
there's no books being sold there... not eve
interest titles!  But, just skip on over to
http://www.nike.org and see what you'll find!
Surprise, surprise... Do you think Nike will lose
their .ORG, or will ever be unable to meet a
higher payment requirement? 

All of this hoopla for .ORG is just a smokescreen
for the Corporate world to further their
anti-competitive culture/influence in another
TLD... one that most of the biggies initially
overlooked!  But, in the spirit of true NSI
favouritism, Verisign is willing to take up their
fight!  This ploy is transparent.  

> A change in .org policy is trying to solve a problem that does not
> exist, and doing so with an inappropriate solution.

Not inappropriate... diabolical!

> 2 million domain holders are not insignificant, no matter how you cut
> it.  Your view that they are is frankly amazing to me.  One that makes
> me really question your objectivity.  And if I remember correctly, the
> number is actually higher and growing at a VERY rapid rate.

Marc Schneider already has my support.  He's the
first to move on this, let's get behind him and
organize NOW! visit: http://www.disgrace.org

> So you think creating an exclusive namespace for organization you deem
> to be worthy of being in an exclusive non-profit TLD that charges an
> arm and a leg for registrations is more important than the existing
> rights of over 2,000,000 REAL domain name registrants?

Considering the true motives...

> If that's what you truly think, then I must question your credibility.

I'm glad you said this, and not I.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.
--
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