Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
> However, when you
> think about it, what people are clamoring for is indeed that Verisign
> determine the future of .org, because what they are clamoring for is
> for .org to remain in vsgns hands.
I doubt that is the desire. But, it is at least a possible result.
> > > > Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B"
> > > > (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.
I don't see Sims nor the Board as pawns of Verisign. Rather, they appear to be
dealing at "arms length." Nor, is ICANN a known "push-over." Its arguable
timidity gives me pause, despite my long held beliefs that:
1. the .ORG TLD (including the data), and .COM and .NET, are either US gov.
property or are in the public domain;
2. creation of monopoly power over these domains is inherently objectionable,
especially (but not exclusively) in the hands of a commercial "exploiter;"
3. if such domains (I would deal with all others in separate categories) are to be
transferred, it should be at value through a commercially reasonable process,
preferably by bid;
4. ICANN is the entity entrusted with the husbandry of the public's interest in
such TLDs and is the best vehicle for asserting the public interest in these
5. ICANN would prevail over any private claim;
6. ICANN is managing the registry function for these domains (without regard to
how others may be managed) through a service contract with NSI/Verisign which
should be open to competition at this, the "bidding" stage; and
7. that it is a violation of the public trust do otherwise.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html