Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	DomeBase
Date/Time:	Fri, December 21, 2001 at 2:08 AM GMT
Browser:	Netscape Communicator V4.7 using Windows NT
Subject:	Thanks for feedback. Excluding new applicants from LR II?
Message:
A. On the one end of the spectrum, there is no question that the way to most fully restore what was taken from LR I pre-registrants is to exclude any new applicants from LR II. B. On the other end of the spectrum, a LR II or auction that gives LR I pre-registrants no standing at all does nothing to restore what was taken from them. There is a chance that Afilias (and ICANN and registrars) will do jolly well whatever they wish... which could well be (B)... especially since I have not seen any substantive action that they must heed that   would make or encourage them to do otherwise.  Under such circumstances, I think that there is virtually no chance of (A), but there might possibly be a chance of a compromise which gives some standing to LR I folks but does not exclude new folks from LR II.   One provision in my proposal which helps LR I folks in this respect is the requirement that registrars who had only one submission per name on their list for LR I stick with that for LR II.  This would help to protect LR I pre-registrants from wholesale dilution of their chances. I also wish that Afilias had implemented the domebase solution before LR I.  It would have been much easier to do back then... but here we are.  If Afilias wants to try to redeem some of the bad stuff from the Sunrise (and I believe that their recent changes were a step in this direction) then I want them to have a do-able proposal to consider. Just my two cents.  Thanks for the feedback.

Message Thread:

• the best way, the tested way, would be first-come, first-serve — Garry Anderson, December 20 @ 7:32 AM (2/18)
• Agree with you Garry - the main problem... — richard_henderson, December 20 @ 8:41 AM (1/1)
• Corruption was quite clear to me from the start — Garry Anderson, December 20 @ 8:59 AM (0/0)
• Compare - "random, round-robin" process that is fair to all applicants — Garry Anderson, December 20 @ 8:34 AM (1/15)
• Suggestion: All Landrush pre-registration fees should be refunded. eom — vera-city, December 20 @ 9:09 AM (1/14)
• Would put them at disadvantage — Garry Anderson, December 20 @ 9:17 AM (2/13)
• proposal for giving LandRush I participants standing in LandRush II — Domebase, December 20 @ 9:26 AM (2/7)
• Compromise — Garry Anderson, December 20 @ 7:53 PM (0/0)
• Why didn't they opt for the original Domebase solution? — richard_henderson, December 20 @ 9:42 AM (2/5)
• Have no doubt that the exact sequence of Sunrise, pregreg and challenges was planned — spot2, December 20 @ 9:56 AM (0/0)
• Suggestion: Landrush 1 applicants need to be made whole... — vera-city, December 20 @ 9:55 AM (1/3)
• Thanks for feedback. Excluding new applicants from LR II? — DomeBase, December 21 @ 2:08 AM (1/2)
• Equitable Solution Vs GOLD RUSH  - Bob, I would love to be — antipathy, December 21 @ 5:08 AM (1/1)
• Merry Christmas Antipodes/pathy — DomeBase, December 22 @ 5:14 AM (0/0)
• Suggestion amended: The original pool of applicants should not be expanded... — vera-city, December 20 @ 9:22 AM (2/4)
• Vera, I can't see how we can have both.  I think the — antipathy, December 20 @ 9:59 AM (0/0)
• That's just silly... — arbitrage, December 20 @ 9:52 AM (1/2)
• Landrush II — Garry Anderson, December 20 @ 8:28 PM (1/1)
• Please don't misunderstand me... — arbitrage, December 21 @ 4:53 AM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy