The window for comments closes tomorrow.
Of course, the window for comments that somehow paint ICANN as a
bastion of fools never closes, but anyone in the access and above
business that opines on the structure, and interests, of registrars
and registries, who opines after tomorrow, but not
There are a few people who have some passing interest in ICANN so I
will inflict upon the list my few paragraph summary of things that
matter, see also my July 2nd post: I went so you don't have to --
ICANN Bruxelles pour les nuls.
The initial report of the 65 person VI WG is published.
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more than happy to sell the name ...
Get your
On 7/26/10 12:45 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You forgot the fifth option.
Invade a country (invasion is not strictly required) and take over
control of their ccTLD which probably does not have an agreement with
ICANN so you can charge and do as you please. Many of the greedy
registrars will be more
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with the fifth option?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut
past of discussions/text circulated through
On July 26, 2010 at 14:42 brun...@nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams) wrote:
When Hewlett-Packard wrote to ICANN earlier this year that it should
get .hp, the obvious rejoinder was Buy a country like everyone else,
submit a change request to the iso3166/MA, and do business under .hp,
On 7/26/10 3:28 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Now seriously, just how many pages of the IV Initial Report did you read
before coming up with the fifth option?
I read the entire thing. Of the 138 pages, take out the Summary, the
ToC and several of the Annexes where many of them are sort of cut
past
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
j
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
Actually the alliances visible at present are:
JN2 proposal:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
- Original Message -
From: Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com
To: Eric Brunner-Williams brun...@nic-naa.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 27 July, 2010
On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
Is there anything there that you would disagree with?
He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather
than evolving over time. His own position
On 7/26/10 7:11 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
The question too, is which model is mitigating the best the presence of rogue
registrars (like domain tasting registrars, etc..)
Franck,
First, tasting is only a part of the extensions from the registrant
serving business model that ICANN explicitly
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
collaborative marketing ploy of 2001.
Or eNom's .cc/.com ploy from 1999-present. Don't
On 7/26/10 7:50 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 14:42 -0400, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
But I do take your point about .co/.com, and in all fairness, it is a
decade delayed favor returned by NeuStar to Verisign for the .bz/.biz
collaborative marketing ploy of 2001.
Or
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the entities at the table don't like or want at
On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Being one of the rare known external readers, is there any bit of it you
have a view on not already reflected in the para above and below?
There is another dimension to the whole enchilada that makes a
compromise a moving shooting target.
Some of the
15 matches
Mail list logo
