Re: [ga] Appendix U

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:35:23AM -0400, babybows.com wrote:

[...]
 
> Bret Fausett and others have rightly pointed out that fact that the
> confidentiality provisions of appendix U in the proposed registry agreements
> will delay the public evaluation of the testbed and the next round of TLDs -

We can either delay now while the DNSO grinds through several months of 
inconclusive rambling, or we can delay later while the confidentiality 
clauses tick away.  Doesn't matter, and we very well could get the 
worst of it, if the registries make a strong case that they need the 
confidentiality clauses anyway.

> a matter which is decidedly not in the public's best interest.  It appears
> as if these registries (which have cited the need for confidential treatment
> of approximately 60% of all such data) are utilizing this appendix as a
> means to promote and solidify their own market share at the expense of the
> registries that are "on hold".  At issue is whether the so-called
> "confidential data" is truly proprietary or is merely an anti-competitive
> artifice.
> 
> At a time when organizations like New.net are entering many new TLDs into
> the market and solidifying relationships with ISPs, we need to be concerned
> about actions on our part that would further delay the entry of future ICANN
> TLDs.

We need to be more concerned about the quick introduction of the 
already approved ones.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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