Hello Swerve,
Thursday, November 16, 2000, 5:53:26 PM, you wrote:
> A democrat and republican (from u.s. congress), are attempting to freeze
> these decisions thru the U.S. dept. of commerce that gives Icann it's
> power, because they have serious concern about how Icann handled this.
Did they receive donations from IOD? :)
> And, from what i am gleaning, Trademark owners have first kick at the new
> domains during the (toxic) Sunrise period. Hmm,... since practically every
> word in the English language is trademarked, including sex, it may be
> revolting to watch how Icann and the new TLD operators handle this. If you
> find my tone laden with contempt, well it is. Imo, Icann has handled this
> in a shameful and disgraceful behind closed doors and undemocratic manner.
I agree with you with regard to the trademark/sunrise stuff.
> It is the unknown variables about how the sunrise process will be handled
> that irks me greatly. To not reveal a clear strategy to the general public
> about this, shows me that we may be witnessing the same old stale story.
> Artificial scarcity in the namespace remains.
Well, that problem was never meant to be solved at this stage. They
made it clear that only a small handful of new TLDs would be approved
at this initial level. That was expected, and the only hope is that
they take the consensus reached in Workgroup C seriously and continue
expansion once this initial rollout is shown to be successful.
> And might i add that just a week or so ago, the Unelected board of directors
> changed the Icann policies so the newly Elected minority wouldn't have the
> right to vote on these tlds. This was done without any explaination from
> Icann.
You are right, this was pathetic.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
