<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Let's Talk About Lawsuites
- To: biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Let's Talk About Lawsuites
- From: Kelly Pitts <kellypitts@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:20:10 -0400
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hello ICANN,<br>
<br>
This is nothing more than extortion !!! Here we go again - same Crap
that we have come to expect ICANN to dish out on a plate and expect
everyone to eat it with a smile.<br>
<br>
<b>The Problems With This Proposal :<br>
<br>
</b>1. This does nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, for the consumer side
of this equation. A bill that goes from $20 to $75,000. Are you
INSANE!<br>
<br>
2. You want to talk lawsuites? See if you don't get your ass sued
off
on this one. Especially, if this issue gravitates to the .com arena.<br>
<br>
3. All I smell is SHEER GREED ! Why is tiered pricing needed
for
something that already has a low fixed cost to deliver to the consumer
before the markup? Why do the registrars need to bend the public over
a barrel? Are they not happy with a tidy profit ? Must they
act like
EXXON and expect like profits.<br>
<br>
4. Sounds like a concession, or more like a "give away", from Vint
Cerf and folks to the registrars because they are tired of taking heat
from them.<br>
<br>
5. Comment period ? Almost no one knows about this
crazy proposal -
only hardcore Net experts like myself. <br>
<br>
6. It seems like this may be designed to test out the limits of the
public and then propose a softer version that is less dramatic that
might pass, so as to have a underhanded way of getting what you want.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Kelly Pitts<br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="Bookman Old Style, Bookman" size="2"></font>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|