Re: [ga] Re: [ga-icann] On Bill's post about ICANN

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Indeed correct, Leah.  Technical things are what ICANN is set up to do,
and it is especially when ICANN starts cutting business deals and
sticks its nose into the market that it dirties its face the most, especially
since it is not really possible for this juggernaut (like NSI/Verisign) to
sneeze without having adverse, anti-competitive effects on other
would-be competitors. "Stability of the Internet" does NOT mean
that "all our buddies get the fat stuff" so as to eliminate all the riffraff
"who might unsettle our way of doing things," and the "marketability,
potential conflicts in recognition from a non-technical standpoint,
usability, and end-user satisfaction" comprise what us scientific types
call the "rubber slide rule" -- argument could be made to find instability
in any of them. If  X meets specific, pre-defined technical qualifications,
then X is in.  And what are "conflicts in recognition from a non-technical
standpoint?"  Trademarks? Gimme a break! That's an issue for the courts,
not ICANN, in spite of its misbegotten UDRP.

Bill Lovell

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 27 May 2001, at 17:15, NameCritic wrote:
>
> > Hypothetical situation apllying to the approval of new TLDs.
> >
> > An organization such as the DNSO or the GA or another organization that
> > does not yet exist would first handle new TLD applications to decide their
> > marketability, potential conflicts in recognition from a non-technical
> > standpoint, usability, and end-user satisfaction, among other criteria.
> > Once approv ed by this body, it would then go to ICANN and it's SOs to
> > review the technical aspects of the introduction of the new TLD.
>
> Marketability, mnemonics and other non-technical areas should not be
> factors for inclusion  in the root.  That is a market/business model issue
> and from a global standpoint is a huge red herring.  ICANN should not
> enter into anything having to do with "market."  End user satisfaction is
> also a market/business model issue.  Why should any part of ICANN
> determine who can be in business or operate a TLD from a non-
> technical standpoint?
>
> >
> > ICANN could not refuse an approved TLD unless it would definitely threaten
> > the stability of the Internet or create some other technical problem such
> > as length, characters it contains, or other problems.
> >
> > I see this as viable. Anyone else?
> >
> > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

--
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