[bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
lizawilliams at mac.com
Fri May 15 07:37:50 UTC 2009
It is usual for you to provide validation and research that supports
your points. You have mentioned "negative externalities" -- apart
from the need to protect legitimate trademarks through existing
mechanisms and introducing improvements where we can, what other
negative externalities are there?
You mention "not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a
tiny minority who wish to direct profit from their launch". How does
that account for people wanting a TLD that is a not for profit,
public benefit, non commercial TLD? More broadly, what is wrong with
making a profit? On a very superficial reading, running a TLD
registry is both legal and not always profitable.
You have said that "profits which are geared to short-term thinking
and which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the
public." Could you be more precise about long-term and lasting
damage to the public?
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757
On 14 May 2009, at 20:23, George Kirikos wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to
>> the GAC (draft attached) in
>> response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO.
> The GAC letter raises important issues which demonstrates that the new
> gTLD program needs far greater study before being capable of being
> launched. They reinforce the resounding comments made by the vast
> majority of the public (including businesses) who've made thoughtful
> comments that do not see any need for new gTLDs, and actually are
> actively opposed to their introduction due to their negative
> externalities. New gTLD advocates have not demonstrated any widespread
> support outside of a tiny minority who wish to directly profit from
> their launch, profits which are geared to short-term thinking and
> which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the public.
> New gTLDs are falsely portrayed by ICANN as "win-win", but they are
> truly "win-lose" (with the number of losers facing damages swamping by
> far any "winners").
> We do not support the GNSO Council's draft response letter, because it
> is written based on the assumption that new gTLDs have to be launched.
> A more measured response would admit not only the possibility, but the
> reality that major threshold issues remain unresolved. Indeed more
> threshold issues are being discovered as the implications of adding
> large numbers of new gTLDs are thought through by more and more
> members of the public.
> George Kirikos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso