DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

If it's as inconsequential as Kent implies, then I fail to see the objection. I
can't help but wonder why Kent is arguing so forcefully against something
as irrelevant as he claims it to be.

Indeed, if Kent finds it of such small consequence, he should have no
objection towards those of us who do find it important.

As one who paid the $50,000, I'd be very pleased to have some
representation on the names council.

As a result of ICANN's insistence that all who submitted TLD applications
have not been turned down, but are, instead, "pending," I see no reason
why the gTLD constituency membership should not include all "pending"
registries as well.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>

> Jeez.  What an absolutely silly and ridiculous distortion.  The gTLD
> constituency is __14%__ of the NC, for petes sake.  By any measure that
> is a small minority, and it is just silly to claim that the behavior of
> such a small minority is going to make the "resulting structure"
> anticompetitive. 

> I have my complaints about NSI as well, but it really looks to me like 
> people have let their emotions completely destroy their reason.

This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>