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

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

misbegotten?  Try incredibly flawed and dishonest.

On 27 May 2001, at 21:46, William S. Lovell wrote:

> 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