ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Feedback on .pro Agreement

  • To: "pro-renewal-2010@xxxxxxxxx" <pro-renewal-2010@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Feedback on .pro Agreement
  • From: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:57:29 +1100

Can I please have clarification on who prepared the notification?

Does it come from ICANN's perspective or RegistryPro?

It is posted on ICANN's website and makes no reference. The wording of the 
proposal creates bias to the issues that are discussed and, in my opinion, 
infer that the changes are supported by ICANN. The use of terms like 
"burdensome" don't promote for a fair review.

Surely this document is, if posted by ICANN, supposed to be neutral and 
developed to allow for feedback no matter which form that may take.

The author of the posting should be clearly marked.

Also, Hostway, the new owner of RegistryPro, knew what they were purchasing 
when they bought the business and associated contracts. They knew the contract 
they had inherited. Why is it permissible to have these clauses changed based 
on their inability to deliver a desirable result? ICANN has made many 
stipulations in the new gTLD draft agreement that prohibits a new gTLD Registry 
from straying from their chosen pathway. Why is this any different? This was 
originally a sponsored and closed namespace that has already been diluted 

ICANN should be careful ti is not creating a precedent that future registry 
operators may call upon.

Adrian Kinderis

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy