Re: [ga] Names Council vote

[Eric Dierker <Eric@hi-tek.com>]

I am afraid nearsightedness has got the best here.  Some in this world and I
expect I can include those in the .vi sphere would agree that a domain name is
something of value to the holder.  I expect your livelihood depends on that fact
being true and that all ccTLD managers respect that as a truth. Also that their
jobs are partially a function of maintaining that value and the value of the
ccTLD to the country.
With that said. And I very much respect your monetary acumen, and personally
felt your pain when scolded about your financial decisions in Melbourne.
What you describe below is micro economics and countries are hopefully working
on macro economics.  But you know this and so I wonder why the need for the
faulty justification.
The agreements you just endorsed are bad for the value of Domain Names as a
whole for a myriad of reasons. By your actions you have potentially damaged the
value of every ccTLD for the sake of saving an entry fee.  Not like you Mr. de
Blanc, what is up?

Sincerely,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
> representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
> assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe the
> financial impact to ccTLDs.
>
> Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from VeriSign/NetSol
> are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the registrar.
> As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
> registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost per
> name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
> ccTLD registries.
>
> >From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease in
> the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.
>
> You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option C"
> available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the board
> to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to reflect a
> more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Andy
> Gardner
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
>
> >"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement
> >or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
> >existing agreement."
> >
> >Voting in favor:
> >M. Mueller
> >Vany Martinez
> >YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
> >M. Schneider (ISP)
> >H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
> >P. Sheppard (B&C)
> >P. Kane (registrar)
> >G. Forsyth (B&C)
> >K. Stubbs (registrar)
>
> That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest that
> they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.
>
> >Voting Against:
> >Guillermo (IPCC)
> >C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
> >R. Cochetti (registry)
> >T. Swineheart (B&C)
> >P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
> >E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)
>
> The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).
>
> Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
> see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something that
> might see them with more business?
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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