On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, at 07:14 [=GMT-0500], Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > This is too low for you, Ross <biiigg snip>
> You very ably miss my point. ICANN is as open to you as it is to me. You > choose to see ICANN as a regulator that should fix things for you and I > choose to see it as a vehicle through which I can help fix the things that I > want to get fixed. We are in more agreement than we think :-) The big difference is, that you are part of those that run ICANN, and the rest of us is _outside_. But we are still trying to get in... > You choose to see Verisign as the product of ICANN's > sickness, No, the problems of the Verisign monopoly predate ICANN. I think one of the few _successes_ of ICANN is that it did away with that, even if only in part. > I choose to see it as the cause. The cause is sooner that the compromises ICANN made to achieve it goals, then live a life of their own without review and amendment. The UDRP is one of the other successes of ICANN. Yes, you may be surprised to hear me say that. The UDRP is not all bad, but it was designed as a first try to be reviewed in late 2000. We are still waiting for that review. Who is stalling this process? Not Verisign, not Tucows. So who? > ...and I think its time that I take my own earlier advice to Patrick and > focus on the product, not the politic, on this list. You are right. May I use this occasion to ask you/Tucows to clear up the darknesses surrounding IDNs? It is a product, sold to/through us in 2000/2001 by Tucows. What do we advise the registrants? Renew? Forget about it? I see a lot coming up for renewal in Spring in our reseller account (European languages were introduced later than oriental, that's why). Some light, please. And what exactly happens to the IDNs in .org?
