<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
More info from NSI's vast store of knowledge, "a significant portion (76%)
of toll-free numbers as domain names are from very small businesses."
Also, "42% of domain names with toll-free numbers in their name are active
and have live Web sites."
At least among this group of small business domain holders, usage is
significantly higher than 10%.
Judith
http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
"An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld;
"superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly
useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers.
ICB Premium Service is On Sale thru January 15.
http://www.icbtollfree.com/Article4910.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:42 PM
> To: Judith Oppenheimer
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff,
> NC,TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
>
>
> I apologize for the mistake, although on further review it
> may be a combination
> of the 75.5% and the 14.2% or 89.9%. I wonder about this
> though, as most 1-4
> employee businesses are sole proprietors, and the name would
> be held by
> individuals anyhow. I speculate that only about 10% of the
> names are actually
> in use. This is not for argument but just for clarity of
> thought, and my
> thought is only rough.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>
> > For clarity's sake, particularly if you are going to use my
> name, the
> > relevant statistic is that 75.5% of domain registrants are
> SMALL businesses
> > of BETWEEN ONE AND FOUR EMPLOYEES.
> >
> > Judith
> >
> > http://www.ICBTollFreeNews.com
> > "An important source of inside information," says InfoWorld;
> > "superb", "invaluable", "critically intelligent", "exceedingly
> > useful", report ICB Premium Subscribers.
> > ICB Premium Service is On Sale thru January 15.
> > http://www.icbtollfree.com/Article4910.htm
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Eric Dierker
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 4:29 PM
> > > To: Kent Crispin
> > > Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from
> BoD, Staff, NC,
> > > TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for your response. The debate yesterday regarding
> > > adhesion contracts
> > > and registrars and TMs would be a point of argument regarding
> > > being very careful
> > > not to violate. Microsofts failed defense of the justice
> > > departments attack upon
> > > it would be another point of argument here. And I think we
> > > could agree that ICANN
> > > is not in competition with anyone, although the alternative
> > > root servers may argue
> > > this point.
> > >
> > > So it would appear that while coming from different angles we
> > > agree that a larger
> > > constituent base would be a very good idea for ICANN,
> > > assuming that we are trying
> > > to fix the structure as opposed to replacing it.
> > >
> > > Looking again at the organizational chart I think several
> > > more constituencies
> > > would not hurt at all. Once again this could be done simply
> > > by creating interest
> > > blocks in the GA and increasing the percentage of directors
> > > flowing therefrom.
> > >
> > > This has to be done in conjunction with Ms. Merry's
> > > suggestions which will
> > > increase the participation level, of Ms. Oppenheimers 85%, a
> > > clear majority above
> > > the 67% as set forth in the metamorphising definition of
> consensus.
> > >
> > > So moving in this direction we are formulating Charter
> > > corrections even while
> > > working within the existing charter. Please heed the
> > > intelligence of the recent
> > > suggestion not to get bogged down in semantics, I do not
> > > stand by any rigid
> > > definition at this point.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:09:15AM -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> > > > > Mr. Crispin,
> > > > > This is a very nice insight into the truth of the
> monopoly matter.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > > But it is
> > > > > also true that it will only continue to exist if it does
> > > not cause a problem
> > > > > that anti-trust laws are designed to prohibit.
> > > >
> > > > Quite true.
> > > >
> > > > > ICANN is doing that right now
> > > >
> > > > No, it's not. If there is anything that ICANN has been
> very careful
> > > > about, it is avoiding antitrust. It has been, as I
> said, a primary
> > > > concern from the very beginning.
> > > >
> > > > > and if it does not get fixed from the inside I am certain
> > > it will get fixed
> > > > > from the outside. So we had better get busy and get the
> > > people or entities
> > > > > affected by ICANN into the decision making process.
> > > >
> > > > In general, getting affected entities involved in the
> > > decision making
> > > > process is not at all necessary to avoid anti-trust. For
> > > example, we
> > > > don't deal with Microsoft by holding at large elections for
> > > the board of
> > > > directors of Microsoft.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kent Crispin "Be good,
> and you will be
> > > > kent@songbird.com lonesome."
> -- Mark Twain
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|