I don't want to put words in your mouth... but the way I read this is that you're faulting ICANN for not reigning in Afilias with respect to not being creative enough (in your opinion) with a Market Development fund?! That doesn't sound like a technical co-ordination issue to me. You want to talk about sunrise fiasco? Check out neulevels scheme...it would make the former owners of Amway proud ;-) Nice to see that the courts are sticking it to them for it.
So I still don't get your point. But we're so off topic now I think we should just let it rest and get back to OpenSRS business. Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net And all that came from on this topic is a vacuum. "7. Cooperative Marketing Campaign Afilias shall initially allocate a minimum of US $6,000,000 for cooperative marketing expenses. Such funds will be restricted solely for Afilias' activities in marketing the Registry TLD. Afilias shall develop a cooperative marketing campaign for ICANN-Accredited Registrars that are parties to Registry-Registrar Agreements with Afilias. Under this campaign, for every dollar (US $1) spent by an Eligible Registrar, Afilias shall provide a matching contribution of fifty cents (US $0.50), provided that no individual Eligible Registrar may receive more than 10% of the amount allocated by Afilias for that year's cooperative marketing campaign. At least US $1,000,000 of the US $6,000,000 initially allocated for cooperative marketing expenses shall be allocated for the cooperative marketing campaign during the first year after the Commencement-of-Service Date. After the first year, the remainder of the US $6,000,000 will be utilized for cooperative marketing unless Afilias determines that these funds should be reallocated based on the experience of the first year's cooperative marketing campaign. The reallocation of these funds will be subject to ICANN consent, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld or delayed." http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-appw-26apr01.htm If one is really creative, one could make a really effective marketing campaign out of this money (no money burning like you recommended). But those beginners have to spend all for legal fees for defending their sunrise fiasco. Nevertheless they have to fulfil the agreement! Afilias is a creation of some of the biggest registrars. Those registrars are required to pump more money into Afilias if Afilias don't have that money to fulfil their contract. What do you hear from ICANN? nothing ----- Original Message ----- From: "James M Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:43 PM Subject: RE: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net > And what do you consider to be a "reasonable sum"? > > Television spots for .info on CNBC, CNN etc... Last I checked these > media companies didn't give these spots away for free. How about print > ads in Wired and a slew of Ziff Davis Publications (PC Mag etc.) I > suppose they let you advertise for free as well?!? > > So how did they fail in your opinion? If your going spew unfounded > statement like that, give us some insight on why you think this way. > I've yet to see any "substance' in any of your posts on this tired > topic. > > James > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 5:51 PM > To: Ross Wm. Rader; Joe Baptista > Cc: adam beecher; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net > > > You want substance? > I give you only one case: The case of Afilias. > There are many points one could raise against Afilias, I only give you > one: They were required by contract with ICANN to spend a reasonable > sum to promote .info TLD, but they failed to. ICANN reaction: none Is > there some dealing behind the scenes? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Joe Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "adam beecher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:58 AM > Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net > > > > This is exactly what I was talking about Joe. A whack of unsupported > > criticisms that don't have a strong basis in reality. ICANN makes > > for a great target, but you should at least try and sling arrows of > > substance... > > > > -rwr > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joe Baptista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: "adam beecher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 11:32 PM > > Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Ross Wm. Rader wrote: > > > > > > > > Words can't express how angry that statement makes me feel > > > > > Elliot. > > It's an > > > > > insult to the intelligence of your customers. > > > > > > > > Adam, > > > > > > > > Can you clarify this a bit? I spent a lot of time dealing with > > > > ICANN > > matters > > > > and therefore soaking up a lot of the criticism that goes its > > > > way. > > > > > I > > would > > > > personally agree that a good portion of the criticism is > > > > warranted > > > > > to differing degrees, but certainly not the majority and > > > > certainly > > > > > not > all > > the > > > > time. A lot of it comes from those with an axe to grind and even > > > > that > > which > > > > comes from supposedly unbiased sources is just plain wrong. I'd > > > > have > to > > side > > > > with Elliot on this one and really don't understand what it is > > > > that > > raised > > > > your ire to the degree that your words convey... > > > > > > Maybe the fact that icann claims to be open and transparent but in > > > fact > is > > > closed and insular. Everyone knows icanns claims to open and > transparent > > > are just a marketing jingo which has gotten very stale. > > > > > > In fact it no longer matter is critisims are warranted or not. > > > Icanns reputation is so tarnished they have effectly branded > > > themselves as something no one wants. Even if they were to do a > > > 180 > > > > degree makeover > it > > > would not help. They damed themselves by showing us a level of > hypocracy > > > one only expects from governments and politicians - both dirty > > > words > > > > to many. > > > > > > Remember the root system is established based on trust, consensus > > > and cooperations. This however is a language foreign to icann. > > > > > > regards > > > joe > > > > > > Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god > > > > > > Pysmatic Network - The start of a unique Internet experience! > > > http://pysmatic.ppp/ > > > > > > > > > > > > >
