Response to comments by Mark Golan and his group

["Alexei Sozonov" <sozon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Sirs,

We see that Mark Golan and his group fully support the IDNgTLD 
constituency petition.

But Mark Golan has here also attacked the participants from Regtime and 
Domain the Net here, claiming that here is conflict of interest and our 
companies has "been misleading a generation of Internet users by selling 
domain names in IDN gTLD extensions in an alternate root".
Since 2000, way BEFORE ICANN started even discuss IDN issues this 
companies launched IDN in there countries with clear acknowledgement 
that this is temporary non ICANN solution for helping people before 
ICANN resolve this issues on there root servers. This stated in each 
domain purchase agreement since 2000.
Secondly Mark Golan claimed that "now their business is at risk with the 
proposed legitimizing of these new gTLD's in the real root" - not true 
interpretation ether: ANYONE who meets the ICANN criteria can apply for 
new gTLD. In the previous Application Guideline book (version 1) was 
stated that the "previous experience in administrating and running IDN 
gTLD is an asset" (but only "IDN gTLD extensions in an alternate root" 
existing so far ) - that was written two years before now, and nobody 
from applicants has influenced this decision.

In the real world, experience, time and efforts we voluntarily 
contribute to the IDN gTLD process greatly overlap all this false and 
misleading statements against our companies. In Case of Regtime, we are 
consulting with Russian Duma, Russian Chamber of Commerce 
administration under president Putin and now Medvedev. Do one really 
think that we cannot be a good asset to ICANN process from Russian side? 
Is it better to leave us outside the process so we can face the fact 
that, using fake arguments nobody wants to hear Russians there? In the 
last ICANN Mexico-city meeting Chinese CNNIC (who is doing exactly the 
same and selling the same domains as DomainTheNet and Regtime under 
the government authority) was accepted to be the sponsor of ICANN 
meeting and they were promoter this very domains right from the stand in 
lobby of the venue. Are they "attempting to influence policy through 
membership of the aforementioned constituency (Mark Golan's)" too?

By the way it was publicly stated about Chinese domains by Vint Cerf and 
in ICANN's minutes that "this domains not considered as alternative root 
since they (or any) domain has the same domain registered as third level 
in ICANN's root" that exactly how this technology works.

Mark Golan is not well-informed about ICANN and its activities, recent 
reports, minutes and is making false and outdated statements.
My company has been active in ICANN IDN committees and now in a current 
ICANN GNSO reform process committees and spend a lot of time and 
resources participating (we have been attending ICANN meeting since 
inception almost) - we doubt Mark and his group contribute at such 
levels since otherwise they would know ICANN policy better.

Alexei Sozonov
Regtime.net