RE: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are Unacceptable

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris,

Where do you think funding of the application process costs should come
from if not from the applicant?

Chuck Gomes
VeriSign Information Services

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of kidsearch
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:11 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: George Kirikos; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry 
> Operators are Unacceptable
> 
> Then we definitely agree. The only reason I suggest ICANN be 
> involved in
> this one is that I don't believe a $50,000 registration fee should be
> charged for someone wishing to create a public benefit TLD. I 
> wish ICANN to
> waive this fee and make concessions for the creation of dot 
> NGO or NPO which
> should be a restricted TLD and go to an operator that is a 
> public benefit
> org.
> 
> Not my org for those wondering if I have an agenda. I don't 
> wish to run it.
> I just want there to be a legitimate nonprofit TLD and wish there was
> representation for public benefit nonprofits within the ICANN 
> supporting
> structure.
> 
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>; <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> <org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 3:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Responses by .biz/info/org Registry Operators are
> Unacceptable
> 
> 
> >
> > I think I must have failed to fully express what I wanted to say.
> >
> > It's my feeling that any "meaning" that is associated with 
> a TLD is the
> > business of the users and operator of that TLD, not the 
> business of ICANN.
> >
> > So if you (.ewe?) or I (.eye?) want to start up a TLD and 
> say that it is
> > for people who want to set up a mesh of brain wave transfer servers,
> > then that's for us to say.
> >
> > But it's not ICANN's role to sit up there on its throne, 
> looking down
> > onto the internet and say "Let there be a TLD named .dog 
> for websites
> > with content for dyxlexics".
> >
> > ICANN's proper role is merely to inquire whether an 
> operator, potential
> > or real, is adhering to widely accepted, published internet 
> *technical*
> > standards.  And for that they merely need a simple one page 
> checklist,
> > and a very small ($50?) application fee to cover costs (assuming a
> > proper sized ICANN rather than the bloated money pit that 
> it has become.)
> >
> > --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release 
> Date: 10/18/06
> >
> >
> 
> 
>