My response is here http://r.tucows.com/ . Yours should be there!
Elliot Noss Tucows inc. 416-538-5494 > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 4:33 PM > To: elliot noss > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net > > > On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, elliot noss wrote: > > > Patrick: > > > > I will try and be a bit more succinct here so that a couple people may > > actually read the whole email. > > :-) > > > Patrick, I don't think openness equals agreeing with you. I think your > > email proves MY point. You describe in great detail all the > > opportunities you had for input. There is NO requirement that you get > > your way or that people agree with you. With respect to alt root issues > > I don't. > > Elliot, with regards to the alt-TLD issue, while I disagree, I completely > respect your P.O.V. Repeating what I said previously I'm pretty confident > that you are going to do what is best for your organization and > your customers. > What I think is important is being able to discuss the issue in a calm, > rational manner as we are, rather than resorting to name-calling and > hysterics as some participants invaribly do. Personally, in the current > climate I don't think the alt-root operators really warrant much > consideration anyways. > > Where we have a marked difference of opinion and/or perception is on the > issue of input into ICANN. The fact that you chose to respond to me > illustrates that you actually *read* what I said, and rather you > agreed with it or not, considered the words. That represents a marked > departure from the results of any participation in ICANN-related > activities, and is why I don't think I've proven your point in any way. > > The decisions surrounding ICANN were made among a small group of people, > most of which are still unknown to me, and who certainly made no attempt > at self-identification(other than those in the early days holding Jon > Postel out.) These people did *not* want public input or debate on the > structure or operation of the organization. They shunned it, but needed to > offer the appearance that there was a channel so that they could > misrepresent this as some sort of "bottoms-up", "consensus-based" > decision-making, a lie that continues to be perpetuated to this day > although thankfully less and less people seem to swallowing it. > > Throwing "input" into a black hole is not a constructive use of time or > energy. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with my opinions. I > do have a problem when mine and innumerable other peoples' opinions are > ignored and I'm told that the process was "bottoms-up", "open", > "transparent", etc. > > > Let's get to the meat of it. You say "Throughout all of this > > participation, I watched a small group of insular, > > manipulative, back-room players succeed in gaining and solidfying > > control of what is arguably one of the most important resources on the > > Internet..". I have heard this numerous times. I want to have this > > point out here and now (and look forward to Jim Fleming taking my > > comments out of context and forwarding them to the world ;-)). > > > > Who are the members of this group? > > The whole point is I don't know who all was/is involved, and neither do > the vast majority of people who attempted to participate in good faith > in this "bottoms-up", "open", "transparent", "consensus-based" > organization. > > You could start with Joe Sims and Jones Day though who have certainly > generated a fairly sizable set of bills for ICANN to pay. Mike Roberts is > likewise a good candidate, given he initially lead ICANN and > oddly enough the > organization he was previously involved with, Educase, was later > gifted with > the .edu registry. > > > Let's run through it. Is it Verisign? Well they lost the monopoly and > > have gone from 100% market share to about 17%. The future of > their registrar > > business is in question. > > Market share of what? Domain name registrations? You certainly know that > ICANN has made acquisitions which they continue to run under the original > branding, right? The also seem to have retained 100% of the .com domain > name registry business which is by far the most lucrative. But there was > an "open", "transparent" process regarding the .com bid right? The one in > which Joe Sims stated that the contract developed was non-negotiable, and > then when the Department of Commerce got involved it suddenly became > negotiable? > > > So let's look at who has benefitted. In my view there are a few smaller > > players (of which Go Daddy and Enom are the largest) and us. Go Daddy > > and Enom have succeeded, IMHO, because they offer dirt-cheap prices and > > we have succeeded, IMHO, becuase we realized that webhosters, ISPs, et > > al are the ones that actually sell domain names. I also believe that > > all of these things have GREATLY BENEFITTED registrants who are WAY > > better off then they were.Now let me go further. I believe Tucows has > > been the single greatest beneficiary of this ICANN process. Not because > > of back room manipulation but because with a more level playing field > > doing the right thing pays off. > > These organizations along with Tucows benefitted because they decided > to play ball with the folks running the show. Having a "bottoms-up", > "consensus-based" organization isn't necessary or desireable for the > majority of domain name registry/registrars, any more than the RBOCs would > want to have policy questions decided by their customers. > > > So let me ask you point blank. Patrick, am I an "insular, manipulative, > > back-room player"? Cause if I am, it aint all its cracked up to be! > > If you are asking my opinion, which is admittedly based on limited > information, you are simply someone that decided that the process was > unimportant, and that it wasn't and isn't very important to have the truly > "consensus-based" organization ICANN was supposed to have been as > long as you > feel the viewpoints and opinions of your organization are adequately > represented, which you obviously do. > > > There is much I don't like. I want more tlds. I think the UDRP needs > > work. The new CEO better make peace with ccTLDs and the RIRs. A > > reformed ICANN needs to be better at enforcing the contracts. But boy > > are things way better off then they were. And in three short years. > > Well, that's certainly one opinion. > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > /\/\/\/\/\/\ > Patrick Greenwell > Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > \/\/\/\/\/\/
