Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report

[George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> George,
> you wrote "My company disagrees with the "open letter"
>
> please tell BC members more about your company, its business objectives, 
> global reach and staffing.

Is this some sort of suggestion that my company isn't qualified to
offer an opinion/position, or that my company is not representative of
the many companies (and individuals) who've registered 180 million
domain names worldwide?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Internet-Domain-Names-Surpass-iw-15423088.html

I'd be curious to know who you believe should be able to comment on
ICANN policy. My company has been a member of the BC for years,
sailing through the credentials committee, etc. Indeed, I was trusted
enough to be on the credentials committee, deciding who was qualified
to be in the BC, before I decided to step down from that committee. It
was my company that detected the flaws in the .biz/info/org contracts
that would have permitted tiered pricing:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_tiered_pricing_tld_biz_info_org_domain/

It was my company that was leading the charge against SiteFinder:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/petition_against_site_finder/
http://www.verisignsucks.com/
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg00295.html
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm

even before it launched (note the 3rd link was on September 9, 2003,
whereas SiteFinder launched on September 15 as per the 4th link).

If those qualifications aren't good enough to create informed
comments, please do educate the rest of the BC as to what does qualify
as informed comment. Do you believe only members of AIM should be
allowed to participate in ICANN policymaking, for example?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/