ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Reply to Brian Johnson's statement of support for proposed agreements

  • To: biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Reply to Brian Johnson's statement of support for proposed agreements
  • From: Andrew Moulden <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:55:23 +0100

Time is now short. Thankfully, there is actually no substance whatsoever to Brian Johnson's submission on behalf of the .Jobs registry, and so nothing much to which I need reply.

Mr Johnson says that .Jobs considers the draft agreements to be "appropriate in light of the business environment that the Internet has become", without expanding on that in any way. He views them as a "prudent step in the right direction" - for whom, one wonders. He thinks that they will enable "more uniform, predictable and business-oriented relationships between ICANN and the registries" - which though almost entirely meaningless some might regard as verging on improper. And there he rests his case, even more flimsily than Chuck Gomes!

It is no coincidence that, of the 335 or so public comments made to date, only two (2) are supportive of the proposed contracts - Mr Gomes for the Verisign registry and Mr Johnson for the .Jobs registry. This is quite simply because under these proposals, nobody would stand to gain except the registries. It is not possible to reconcile this fact with ICANN's core principles and agreement with the US DoC.

Andrew Moulden


Chuck Gomes's submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/msg00124.html
My reply: http://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/msg00151.html
Reply by Rick Schwartz: http://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/msg00153.html

Brian Johnson's submission: http://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/msg00283.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy