- To: settlement-comments@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Scare Tactics
- From: adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:36:00 -0600
The supporters of this plan have obviously been fed lies about the UN
"taking over the internet" . I think some light needs to be shed on this. This
is old news : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4441544.stm
THE UN IS NOT GOING TO TAKE OVER . . . at least not anytime soon ! It
might be a blessing however if Commerce steps in and sets some things
With that said, let's quit the scare tactics . Pushing the approval of a bad
setllement to avoid a worse fate is a great tactic. I think we're all too
with this tactic in politics, but the simple fact is that there is no truth to
gaining control over the internet.
Let's try and refocus on the issue of granting an inherent monoply even more
power to raise pricing, control AND sell the registry data and extremely
valuable traffic data . The technology that is used to maintain a registry
hasn't changed since verisign began the registry so why has it become more
expensive to run and why do they think it will become more expensive
instead of less expensive ? Why is the .net registry services cheaper per
name to run than .com ?
Litigation does cost money, but if Verisign and stuck to the rules of their
contract in the first place we wouldn't be in this position would we ?
Scare tactics don't hide the obvious flaws in this proposed back-room deal.
ICANN not being able to enforce the rules and Verisign doing as they please
really doesn't seem too much different to me than putting the UN in control
anyway. Keep trying to scare us. It's obvious by the "In support" posts that
these all came from the same "script".