[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[comments-gtlds] Comments on the gTLD Expansion Proposals
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Becky Burr <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Esther Dyson <email@example.com>, Mike Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: [comments-gtlds] Comments on the gTLD Expansion Proposals
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:12:52 -0500
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Recently, an appeal to comment on the gTLD expansion
proposals was sent to the Boston Working Group list.
The author, someone whom I greatly respect, argued
that "New TLDs...is the ultimate litmus test of
ICANN's nature, legitimacy and purpose."
This person went on to encourage everyone to respond,
because it would influence the "DNSO and ICANN and
provide ammunition for the forces of reason, or it
will be the final indication that the whole thing
is a corrupt sideshow."
While I truly respect this position and those who
continue to work very hard to positively influence
ICANN, there are others who simply can't ignore
ICANN's history of secret decision making, ignoring
by-laws, and changing rules after the fact.
Fact is, many have *already* decided that it is a
corrupt sideshow. We refuse to pretend that ICANN
is legitimate, that our comments matter, and that
anything we might say might influence the pending
decisions. And most importantly, we refuse to give
ICANN any legitimacy by participating in its bogus
"It is inexcusable to do nothing" the author concludes,
and on this point we agree. It is for this reason that
I submit these comments as my official response.
New Media Relations
"We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
building it just outside the constitution's review."
-- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN