Fw: Re[4]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall


> I respect the work of the working group William. But having BEEN in
working
> groups, my opinion stays the same. Your groups recommendations happened to
> be in line with what they wanted to do anyway. When that is not the case
> they shut the group down.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
> To: "NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
> Cc: "sergio.baccaglini" <sergio.ba@libero.it>; <ga-roots@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:14 AM
> Subject: Re[4]: [ga-roots] How the sky might fall
>
>
> > Hello NameCritic,
> >
> > Tuesday, June 05, 2001, 10:56:56 AM, NameCritic wrote:
> >
> > > More Applicants = More $$$ for ICANN, not more TLDs approved,
regardless
> of
> > > the applicant's qualifications. In the last round they could have at
> least
> > > been honest and said they would approve just 7 tlds before asking for
> the
> > > money. They didn't because they are trying to turn it into a lottery
> where
> > > they get to choose the winners. They can't even do that in Vegas.
> >
> > You need to read up more on what really happened,and not listen to the
> > propaganda from your alt.root buddies.
> >
> > In fact, the recommendation from the DNSO was for >>6<< new TLDs in
> > this initial round.  The Workgroup C recommended 6-10 to the Names
> > Council (a hard fought consensus), and the Names Council recommended
> > 6.
> >
> > ICANN's BOD then approving 7 shows to be anyway, a good faith effort
> > to abide by the consensus agreement from the DNSO workgroup C (Which
> > was open to all) and from the Names Council, who for the most part
> > followed the workgroup's recommendations in their own.
> >
> > Not only that but the ICANN BoD also seems to follow the recommended
> > criteria that came out of the workgroup.
> >
> > Anyone looking at it objectively (And not from the POV of a rejected
> > applicant who is trying to justify their position) would see that at
> > least as far as this round goes, ICANN did what it was supposed to do.
> >
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000321.NCwgc-report.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000417.NCwgc-addendum.html
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds-statement.html
> >
> > The number of likely to be approved applicants was well know in
> > advance, and most everyone recognized that this would most likely be
> > 6.  ICANN ended up with 7.  And on top of that they did a very decent
> > job of applying the consensus criteria that many of us worked so hard
> > on coming to an agreement to in the workgroup c process.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh
> > mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> > Owner, Userfriendly.com
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> >
> >
>

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