<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
gTLD proposal, comments from France
- To: 2gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: gTLD proposal, comments from France
- From: admin@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:12:19 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><FONT face="Courier New">We note that ICANN not only
ignored the vast majority of first- round comments, including ours, which were
against the introduction of an unlimited number of new gTLDs, the removal of
price caps, and other matters, but ICANN introduced changes to the guidebook
that were the exact opposite of the recommendations, including those of the US
Department of Commerce and US Department of Justice, which called
for:<BR><BR></FONT><PRE style="MARGIN: 0em">ICANN's giving greater
consideration to consumer interests.</PRE><BR><TT>ICANN carefully weighing
potential consumer harms against potential consumer benefits before adding new
gTLDs and renewing new gTLD registry agreements.</TT><BR><BR><TT>ICANN to
establish competitive mechanisms for authorizing new gTLDs and renewals of gTLD
registry agreements whereby prospective gTLD operators would compete for gTLDs
by proposing registry terms, including maximum fee schedules, that would
provide consumer benefits.</TT><BR><BR><TT>ICANN of course not only ignored
both recommendations, but did the exact
<STRONG>opposite</STRONG>.</TT><BR><BR><TT>One can't help but feel disturbed
that ICANN can not only overlook high quality input like that provided by the
DOJ, but do the exact opposite. If the DOJ's comments are simply disregarded,
how much weight are my comments or anyone else's going to be
afforded?</TT></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|