Frankly George, I don?t think you're being fair in your
expectations. IMHO (MSRP 0.02$)
1) ICANN acted twice, they asked nicely and now are
insisting. It may not suit your timetable but I think
you're letting your past experience with policy that
hasn?t gone your/our way cloud your judgment. In the
almost 5 years I've been involved with this process I have
yet to see such quick and decisive action and I see it as
a very positive trend.
2) Regarding WLS, Verisign delayed its launch (originally
set for Oct 27) due to "ICANN not approving it". Can't
wait to see the end game play itself out on this front.
3) As far as punitive measures of a monetary nature go, I
see that as completely irrelevant at this point. The crux
of the issue is that ICANN is insisting that Verisign give
us (us being the average internet user) back the internet
that they broke 10+ days ago. Let's deal with that first.
Once we do, an assessment of damages can be made and
whatever punitive damages can be worked out. Secondly I
don?t think that ICANN should have asked for such measures
at this stage, we don?t know if they will act or not.
Wonder how many invalid www.ddooesnotttexxisst.com will be
made at 6:00 PDT on the 4th ;)
Cheers,
James
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>--- jwoods@tucows.com wrote:
>> Good news folks...three cheers for ICANN ;)
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03oct03.htm
>
>I wouldn't be cheering for ICANN, as they:
>
>1. Should have made this statement on Day 1, or better
>yet,
>PRE-EMPTIVELY, as they had been warned about SiteFinder's
>impending
>launch before it happened (and had also seen the .biz
>example of
>Wildcarding). This shows the continuing failure of ICANN,
>and its
>impotence. This failure is evident in the WLS process,
>too, and should
>be corrected there.
>
>2. Did not go far enough, in insisting that VeriSign
>return all audited
>GROSS revenues (that would include Overture's share,
>Paxfire's share,
>VeriSign's share, and any other partners we don't know
>about) related
>to SiteFinder. Hopefully this is an oversight that will
>be corrected
>soon. It was point (d) of the petition at:
>
> http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:49 EDT