Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
Pistoff |
Date/Time: |
Wed, October 18, 2000 at 6:25 PM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community |
Message: |
|
I would like to elaborate further regarding my previous posting shown above in the
general section. Sorry for the format, but I felt that applying the case study
method made the most sense. It's an effective way of communicating both the
issues and solutions. Thanks! To ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Central
Issue: The decision making process has not been sufficiently announced to the
outside world. Such inaction is especially troublesome given the fact that
it's taking place during a time when the media's attention is being stretched thin
by several other important events. ICANN needs to compete more effectively
for media coverage.Recommended Course of Action: Extend the decision making
process beyond the U.S. Presidential Elections by a few weeks. Extending the
decision making process would provide a more equitable platform for the following
reasons: 1)many more individuals will have an opportunity to participate; and 2)
the applicants will be treated more equitably since some of their postings were delayed
(for whatever reason) thereby allowing all applicants to enjoy the same amount of
coverage time. ICANN can also print ads in the press and run announcements
on the radio, both very effective mediums in reaching out to the public. Such
announcements can be done quickly and affordably. As for cost, ICANN pulled
in about $2.35 million (47 applicants x $50k). I think the organization can
afford this undertaking given what's at stake. Conclusion: We've waited over
four years to reach this point. What's a few more weeks given the amount of
money, time, and effort that has been invested thus far on expanding the infrastructure
of the internet. Significant Factors (not all inclusive): 1) Many individuals
are posting messages of an emotional nature. This is being done, in part, because
there is limited time in which to debate the complex issues. This, in turn,
has led to a sense of desparation for those involved thus far. 2) The U.S. Presidential
Election and the middle east crises (both obviously very important issues) have absorbed
a significant portion of the media's attention from this very important issue.
3) The World Series is upon us, and as such, it will absorb an additional amount
of media coverage, especially since the games will be held in New York (good for
New York). 4) Several other good reasons which I've neglected to include in the
interest of time (but please feel free to add any points that I've missed if you
so desire). Thank you for taking the time to hear me out.
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .nom Application by the dotNOM Consortium Moderator, October 7 @ 10:11 PM (32/69)
- End price Hastings, November 6 @ 12:04 AM (1/8)
- Legal responcibility? Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 10:57 PM (0/0)
- global focus Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 10:53 PM (0/0)
- Unclear financial costs and structure griffiths, November 5 @ 9:56 PM (2/2)
- separation of commercial and pesonal domains Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:13 PM (1/2)
- Accounting discrepancies hunter, November 5 @ 4:09 AM (1/1)
- Clarification of financial information Hunter, November 4 @ 9:55 AM (0/0)
- Multiple people with the same name Hunter, November 4 @ 9:46 AM (1/1)
- .NOM sounds too much like .COM julie, November 4 @ 4:14 AM (1/3)
- tech view of .nom techchick, November 4 @ 2:54 AM (0/0)
- .nom- CORE or dotnom consortium? Ted Hanks, November 4 @ 2:46 AM (0/0)
- dotNOM Consortium Walter Bergfeld, November 4 @ 12:29 AM (0/0)
- .nom alireza, November 3 @ 9:04 PM (1/1)
- .NOM can be great alireza, November 3 @ 8:57 PM (0/0)
- Same problem... PHXbird, November 3 @ 5:50 PM (1/2)
- .nom jedrink24, November 3 @ 5:34 PM (1/2)
- I agree with Jim Chen on .nom BionicBro, November 3 @ 2:45 AM (0/0)
- dot whatever PinkFish, November 3 @ 2:20 AM (1/3)
- demand for .nom Jim Chen, November 2 @ 8:53 PM (0/0)
- .NOM makes great sense DRrandy, November 2 @ 5:56 AM (0/0)
- dotNOM Jer072, November 2 @ 2:33 AM (1/1)
- .nom proposal is an excellent idea tiger74, November 2 @ 1:56 AM (0/0)
- .nom consortium wayanna, November 2 @ 1:47 AM (0/0)
- .nom consortium lindaw, November 2 @ 1:01 AM (0/0)
- wholesale price UV, October 30 @ 5:50 PM (2/8)
- Excellent Proposal cbuck@usc.edu, October 27 @ 7:04 PM (0/0)
- Confusion about .TV’s finances Hunter, October 27 @ 4:18 AM (0/0)
- How does the applicant propose handling multiple people with the same name? hunter, October 27 @ 3:42 AM (1/1)
- .nom vs .com/.net for individuals stvtron, October 26 @ 11:59 PM (0/0)
- .nom proposal looks good dc, October 26 @ 11:39 PM (1/2)
- .nom, .pro nschlegel, October 25 @ 3:48 PM (0/0)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:25 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy