North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
At 03:26 PM 3/6/2001, you wrote:
Quite a number listed on the mailing list for Domain-Policy; archives at http://lists.netsol.com/archives/domain-policy.html . Everything from decisions that failure to offer to sell the domain is proof of bad faith to decisions where offerring to sell is proof of bad faith; Cities are not entitled to domains with their names; etc. etc. Far too many to list here...Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
And fine, as far as it goes in theory. But the fee was considered fairly steep to begin with (since it's basically thrown away money) and the losers' money is being used to fund the winner's TLDs and other operations. Far from an option or performance bond, this appears to be a simple "We need money, so we're going to extort it from you" plan.> paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go. Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian.
One doesn't pay the property's full price for the option nor lose the bond if they perform. This was high-stakes poker with a $50k ante. There *appear* to have been...improprieties...in the decision-making process, hence the outcry. If you lose fairly, well..suck it up. If, however, the deck appears to have been stacked...Apparently, you've never optioned property.... Or supplied a performance bond.
Recommend you join firstname.lastname@example.org where we discuss these matters more fully. It's not really NANOG material (at this point, anyway).> completely arbitrary and capricious process, Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
You *MUST* be joking. Participation like becoming at At-Large member so that I could enjoy the benefits of membership...um, I mean, be allowed to vote one time for a member? Participation like people not being allowed to attend "public" meetings? Or not being allowed to speak even at the "public" meetings? Participation as in public comment on the Verisign deal?I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
More civilized? Perhaps. Contrary to democratic principles? Certainly.Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!
Really...you simply MUST join us on Domain-Policy to discuss this issue in more depth...
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large