Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

  • From: Dean Robb
  • Date: Wed Mar 07 18:19:16 2001

At 03:26 PM 3/6/2001, you wrote:

Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation.  So, I spent the
better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
Quite a number listed on the mailing list for Domain-Policy; archives at http://lists.netsol.com/archives/domain-policy.html . Everything from decisions that failure to offer to sell the domain is proof of bad faith to decisions where offerring to sell is proof of bad faith; Cities are not entitled to domains with their names; etc. etc. Far too many to list here...

> paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a

The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various
other discussions) expected to be non-refundable.  Pay as you go.
Nobody else pays for your cost to operate.  Very libertarian.
And fine, as far as it goes in theory. But the fee was considered fairly steep to begin with (since it's basically thrown away money) and the losers' money is being used to fund the winner's TLDs and other operations. Far from an option or performance bond, this appears to be a simple "We need money, so we're going to extort it from you" plan.

Apparently, you've never optioned property....  Or supplied a
performance bond.
One doesn't pay the property's full price for the option nor lose the bond if they perform. This was high-stakes poker with a $50k ante. There *appear* to have been...improprieties...in the decision-making process, hence the outcry. If you lose fairly, well..suck it up. If, however, the deck appears to have been stacked...

> completely arbitrary and capricious process,

Really?  In the legal sense?  What proof do you offer?
Recommend you join domain-policy@lists.netsol.com where we discuss these matters more fully. It's not really NANOG material (at this point, anyway).

The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
I'd ever expected.  On that basis alone, it's a success.
You *MUST* be joking. Participation like becoming at At-Large member so that I could enjoy the benefits of membership...um, I mean, be allowed to vote one time for a member? Participation like people not being allowed to attend "public" meetings? Or not being allowed to speak even at the "public" meetings? Participation as in public comment on the Verisign deal?

Yes, I wish that things were moving faster.  I wish that the fully
envisioned board had been selected.  I wish that there was more
sunshine.  But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has
the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even
consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!
More civilized? Perhaps. Contrary to democratic principles? Certainly.

Really...you simply MUST join us on Domain-Policy to discuss this issue in more depth...

Dean Robb
www.PC-Easy-va.com
On-site computer services
Member, ICANN At Large






Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.