[bc-gnso] RE: Important--Regsitry Registrar Separation issue
icann at leap.com
Fri Jul 31 18:17:03 UTC 2009
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> Not to sound like an attorney but please read the ICANN proposal "fine
> print". Under the current proposal a Registrar would be able to register up
> to 100,000 in a TLD in which they or an affiliate were the registry
> operator. Do you want to take a bet on what percentage of those 100,000 with
> be premium generics?
As I said yesterday,
this is simply about the registrars and registries arguing about
dividing a pie between themselves, taking the cream of the best names
and auctioning them off or monetizing them for their own benefit, just
like .mobi did with their premium list, just like .asia did with their
auctions, etc. I doubt Mike O'Connor needs any education on the value
of premium generics. :)
Both sides (registrars and registrars) are offering the public and
consumers a false choice, either Door #1 or Door #2. They don't want
the public to be discussing Door #3, the solution the NTIA/DOC/DOJ
endorses, namely competitive tenders for fixed periods, where registry
operations are treated like any other procurement contract.
Let me repeat the questions of yesterday (and some from 5 weeks ago),
which remain unanswered, and number them:
1) On what basis is PIR claiming there is a "strong statement of
concern" by the BC?
2) Who is asking if the BC has a view on this issue?
3) Is ICANN policymaking being done outside the official public
4) There does not appear to be any open public comment period on this
issue at ICANN. Where are "comments" being made?
5) What are people's conflicts of interest in regards to wanting the
BC to take any position on this topic, and in particular, why take a
position at *this* time when there are no open public comment periods
asking for input?
More information about the Bc-gnso