RE: [ga] Names Council vote

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Jeff, et all..

I have not been "gotten to" by anyone.

Of course, a domain name is valuable to the holder! what does that have to
do with my position vis-a-vis ccTLD contributions to ICANN.

The ccTLD is asked to pay over 1/3 of the ICANN budget, and at least 100 of
the ccTLDs, if not 150 ccTLDs have a problem with that now.

Option "B" means that ccTLDs will pay less money, period. You may wax
eloquently about the moral implications, but you are not the one that has to
come up with US $ 1.5 million, and rising each year.

Money IS an issue with the majority of my constituents.

I will continue to seek maximum benefits for the majority of my constituency
members, as long as i am in a position to do so.

In a few days, you will see the results of the ccTLD "straw poll", and, rest
assured, the money issue is at the forefront of many ccTLD's responses.

regards

Peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:02 AM
To: Eric Dierker
Cc: Peter de Blanc; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote


Eric and all remaining assembly members,

  I am a little surprised at Peters position here as well.  Seems that maybe
he has been "Gotten to" by someone?  However given that the DNSO
Chair has instituted a BAN on my posting to the GAL list inappropriately
such a possibility is not to far fetched.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I am afraid nearsightedness has got the best here.  Some in this world and
I
> expect I can include those in the .vi sphere would agree that a domain
name is
> something of value to the holder.  I expect your livelihood depends on
that fact
> being true and that all ccTLD managers respect that as a truth. Also that
their
> jobs are partially a function of maintaining that value and the value of
the
> ccTLD to the country.
> With that said. And I very much respect your monetary acumen, and
personally
> felt your pain when scolded about your financial decisions in Melbourne.
> What you describe below is micro economics and countries are hopefully
working
> on macro economics.  But you know this and so I wonder why the need for
the
> faulty justification.
> The agreements you just endorsed are bad for the value of Domain Names as
a
> whole for a myriad of reasons. By your actions you have potentially
damaged the
> value of every ccTLD for the sake of saving an entry fee.  Not like you
Mr. de
> Blanc, what is up?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
> > representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
> > assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe
the
> > financial impact to ccTLDs.
> >
> > Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from
VeriSign/NetSol
> > are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the
registrar.
> > As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
> > registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost
per
> > name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
> > ccTLD registries.
> >
> > >From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease
in
> > the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.
> >
> > You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option
C"
> > available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the
board
> > to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to
reflect a
> > more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Andy
> > Gardner
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
> >
> > >"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing
agreement
> > >or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
> > >existing agreement."
> > >
> > >Voting in favor:
> > >M. Mueller
> > >Vany Martinez
> > >YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
> > >M. Schneider (ISP)
> > >H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
> > >P. Sheppard (B&C)
> > >P. Kane (registrar)
> > >G. Forsyth (B&C)
> > >K. Stubbs (registrar)
> >
> > That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest
that
> > they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.
> >
> > >Voting Against:
> > >Guillermo (IPCC)
> > >C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
> > >R. Cochetti (registry)
> > >T. Swineheart (B&C)
> > >P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
> > >E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)
> >
> > The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).
> >
> > Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
> > see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something
that
> > might see them with more business?
> >
> > --
> > Andrew P. Gardner
> > barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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
> >
> > --
> > 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

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@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