ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT

  • To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
  • From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:10:35 -0400


Just in case anyone had any doubts that the IRT is ultimately intended
for existing gTLDs too, see the article at Computerworld:


"Unfortunately, the proposal applies only to new GTLDs when it's the
existing ones that cause the biggest problems, Metalitz says. Even if
every recommendation is adopted for the new GTLDs, getting the same
rules applied to existing domains like .com will be tough, he adds.
"The problem is, you have entrenched interests that are resistant to
change," he says.

However, ICANN may be able to apply the new rules as existing
registrar contracts expire, Levins says. "We may be able to retrofit
the features that are in the new GTLD agreements to address abuse."

(that's from page 5 of the article) I disagree with Steve Metalitz
that people are resistant to change. The key is that the change must
be for the better, a "win-win", and that's currently not on the table
via the IP Constituency's one-sided and unbalanced proposals.

Lynn Goodendorf (mentioned in the article) was in the live chatroom
yesterday during the public session (well, yesterday in my timezone),
and she was responsive to the suggestions folks like myself were
making (e.g. limiting the URS to only newer domains below a certain
age, as that's where most of the abuse was for her company). I think
there's a disconnect between the members of the IRT, who took on very
extreme positions, and the "average Joe Markholder", who would have
been just as happy with a more reasonable and balanced proposal, one
that responsible registrants would have supported.


George Kirikos

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy