I do not feel that it is reasonable to attack our business model because
we have proposed a stable and reliable business model which also happens to be profitable.
I would really appreciate if you read our submission...we would enjoy responding
to any comments you might have which would help us to enhance our proposal.
Let me respond to some of your other comments specifically:
We were initially intended to reap a profit on the lucrative .XXX domains and then
descided, in order to stave off criticism and create a better public image, we cloaked
ourselves in the sacred hallow of the .kids domain.
ICM REGISTRY: Our proposal
details a strategy of categorizing Internet content according to type of content,
similar to the movie rating system. In order to accomplish this, you need to
have both Rated-G and Rated-X content.
Brahim: Of course we'll
donate all the profits of the .kids domain to child organizations since these will
be miniscule in comparison to
the huge profits we'll enjoy from the .XXX domains.
REGISTRY: Regardless of whether we donate profits to support the .kids domain
or to another appropriate charity, I fail to see our offer to contribute as anything
more than what it is...philanthropy to support our greater goal of protecting children
online. The fact that our solution has the potential to be profitable, is not
a reasonable argument. Both NetNanny and CyperPatrol are both profitable Internet
businesses managing adult and child oriented content. As a quick clarification
of your comment that our contribution is "miniscule in comparison", you should know
that under our proposal, more than 20% of our gross registration revenue will go
to charity...how many of the other ICANN submissions offer this kind of consideration?
Oh wait, to add insult to injury, lets just resell this idea to NSI; they've already
been enjoying a monopoly over gTLD's, they'll certainly have no qualms concealing
their ownership of the most lucrative new TLD under another comapny name with the
added camouflage of "doing it all for the children" (for those who havn't noticed,
these people won't even administer their own registry -- they're outsourcing this
to the NSI, defying the whole concept of
the new gTLDs, to promote a non-monopolistic
DNS registration system).
ICM REGISTRY: I agree with your comment that the
whole concept of
the new gTLDs is to promote new competition. However, with
respect to our specific proposal and our intent of protecting children, we decided
that it was more important to choose the strongest and most reliable registry in
the world, Verisign Global Registry Services. In my opinion, no other registry
has the technical and political experience to tackle the complexities involved in
offering this unique new namespace. In addition, as one of the leading ‘trust’
company’s in North America, Versign has contributed a significant amount of time
and effort to working with a wide variety of important Child Protection Organizations
including the Child Online Protection Act Commission a congressionally appointed
panel, mandated by the Child Online Protection Act, which was approved by Congress
in October 1998.
Brahim: Sorry, someone had to say it.
ICM REGISTRY: Someone had to say what...don't submit a proposal to
try and manage adult and child-oriented content?...don't try and protect children
...Brahim, while I appreciate that you are expressing your opinion, it
would be more useful if you channeled your energy towards helping us to enhance our
proposal by making constructive comments...our motives and our proposal are sincere.
Our submissions primary goal is to manage Internet content to protect children.