Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: jandl
Date/Time: Mon, April 2, 2001 at 10:02 PM GMT (Mon, April 2, 2001 at 6:02 PM EDT)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Subject: Why waste money?

Message:
 

 
               
      The ICANN process was so horribly flawed it was a total waste of money to apply.  ARNI has its own DDRP and does not intend to adhere to the one-sided UDRP that is theft by fiat.  We also adhere to the original concept of FCFS in registering domain names and would not consider a sunrise provision.  There is little point to the introduction of new gTLDs if the Trademark Lobby has priority in choice of domain names in every TLD.  The Working Groups determined that it was an unwise and unworkable situation, but ICANN found a way around those recommendations by intimidation via the application criteria and questions.

All of our concerns and predictions were bourne out when the ICANN BoD made their selections.

In addition, we intend to bring on our own accredited registrars and are developing the SRS to do so.  At this time, there is no plan to charge registrars for the software as Verisign does.  However, if there is a charge at all, it will be minimal.  It will be open source as well, according to present plans.  ICANN accredited registrars are welcome to apply, but their contracts with ICANN will most likely "restrain" them from doing so.  

Further, since our policies are in favor of registrants and users, our application would not have stood much of a chance in the "lottery".  We also have a real problem with the losers funding the implementation of the winners and funding ICANN's defense of litigation brought by the losers and others.  The $50k was to fill their coffers.

Still further, we have an existing registry with thousands of registrants and did not feel that we should be treated any differently than ccTLDs that are included in the USG root without benefit of contract.  There is no need for us to "prove our concept."  It works.

And further yet, for a small business $50,000 could be much better spent for infrastructure, development and customer support.

If ICANN had stayed with the concept of a technical coordinating body and had cooperated, as they were supposed to do, with other entities, they could have gained support and credibility.  Instead they chose to carve up the bylaws, set themselves up as a world governance body that answers to no one, to maintain a self-seated board rather than hold an election within months, disenfranchise the at-large community and destablize the net by offering to introduce collisions and harm existing businesses.

Our applying to ICANN would have bolstered the notion that what they are doing is all right.  It is not.  We (Inclusive Name Space) have offered cooperation.  ICANN does not understand the word, but instead insists they are "the only real root" and continue to ignore reality.

Regards,

Leah Gallegos
     

 

Link: The BIZ TLD Registry


Message Thread: