[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council agenda item request: discussionof wholesale price for names

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Thu Aug 29 05:43:44 CEST 2002


>I oppose. If the problem is absence of new TLDs
>why not call for them to add more instead?


Because we've done that before and it's not got anywhere.  There's an 
ongoing President's committee looking at the introduction of new TLDs.

If you think ICANN is doing a good job with the current wholesale 
price mechanism, just say so.

Thanks,

Adam



>  >>> Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski <iczycykowski at aip.de> 08/28/02 06:08AM >>>
>On 27 Aug 2002 at 15:57, Harold J. Feld wrote:
>>  If there is interest by the consticuency, I will raise it.
>
>In favour.
>I agree to Adams thoughts. They'll love it, but that's what we are
>there for. The longer we wait for new TLDs, the greater the need
>for a review.
>
>>  Can we have some mechanism for taking a vote on this question?
>>  We can get it qued up in time for Board consideration for
>>  Shanghai if we act.
>
>Shall we ran it up a flagpole and see who salutes? Do a temperature
>check using a straw man? Sorry, I'm running out of my "Dilbert-
>English". Let's just have a few more mails in favour, shall we?
>
>	--iliya (yea, alive)
>
>>  Adam Peake wrote:
>>  > People getting agitated, it almost seems as if there's an issue
>>  > here. Wonder if ICANN should be encouraged to review it's current
>>  > wholesale price mechanism :-)
>>  >
>>  > Milton, I do not think it's realistic to expect any significant
>>  > number of new TLDs anytime soon. And probably no new open TLDs
>>  > anytime. Period (I am not saying I think this is a good thing.)
>>  > While I think you might be right about competition generally, I
>>  > can't see it happening.
>>  >
>>  > I think a  review would be extremely sensible. It would be hard to
>>  > do well and would be something of a test for the efficacy reformed
>>  > organization.  And a review might be fun to watch!
>>  >
>>  > Thanks,
>>  >
>>  > Adam
>
>[lots of boring flames cut because innocent electrons were harmed.]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


-- 



More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list