<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><font style="font-family: Verdana;" size="2" color="#000000" face="Verdana">Mr. Younger,<br> As of the first month of .com, it is unlikely it made its full complement either! For a real record of the ultimate success of the original .biz, contact Leah Gallegos at jandl@jandl.com and ask her to release her final numbers. I don't think it was more than a few thousand, but that was more than enough to sustain the business model as profitable. That it made less with no publicity than the new one did for ICANN justify its theft? Does that not make you wonder how much money is wasted in running the ICANN root, when she was making money at that level?<br> Furthermore, does it justify creating colliders in the internet without even discussing the possibility of a peaceful negotiated settlement before awarding what they did not own to someone who promised them a good return and paid ridiculous fees just to get it? Your argument is a good try, but falls flat on the underlying problem of net neutrality as it relates to ICANN.<br><br>-Karl E. Peters, President<br>Top Level Domain Association, Inc.<br><br><br> <blockquote webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: verdana;"> <div> -------- Original Message --------<br> Subject: Re: [governance] REAL net neutrality in now a hope!<br> From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com><br> Date: Tue, December 16, 2008 2:53 pm<br> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<br> <br> For an unbiased review of the "success" of .biz at the Atlantic Root Network see Ben Edelman's analysis at <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/edelman/dotbiz/" target="_blank" mce_href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/edelman/dotbiz/">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/edelman/dotbiz/</a><br> <br> An example: "As of November 15, 2000, only 5 registrants had registered any SLDs at all in ARNI's .BIZ TLD."<br> <br> <br> --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Karl E. Peters <kpeters@tldainc.org> wrote:<br> <br> > From: Karl E. Peters <kpeters@tldainc.org><br> > Subject: [governance] REAL net neutrality in now a hope!<br> > To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<br> > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 2:14 PM<br> > <div id=yiv1801668660><html><span<br> > style="font-family:Verdana;color:#000000;font-size:10pt;"><font<br> > style="background-color:rgb(102, 255,<br> > 255);"><br>Quoted on and from the Governance<br> > list:<br>"Net neutrality<br> > laws are necessary to ensure that Internet service<br> > providers do not<br> > block content they disagree with or give financial breaks<br> > to big tech<br> > companies, squeezing out smaller competitors and stifling<br> > innovation".</font><br><br> <br> > I must agree with the author of the above quote!!! <font<br> > style="font-style:italic;text-decoration:underline;">(And<br> > may it begin at home, with ICANN!!!)</font><br<br> > style="font-style:italic;text-decoration:underline;"><br> <br> > ICANN is the world's largest and grandest offender of<br> > these very net neutrality ideals when it ignored (and<br> > continues to ignore) the original plan that the<br> > "alternate roots" would serve as a testbed for the<br> > introduction of new TLDs into the "legacy root",<br> > now administered by ICANN. ICANN then goes with the<br> > big spenders it hopes to gain benefit from in awarding<br> > ".biz" away from its successful operator of that<br> > day, the Atlantic Root Network. (There is more than adequate<br> > proof of the existance of this .biz in carefully kept<br> > archives, if anyone cares to challenge!)<br> > <br> <br> <br> > While ICANN may claim it was unaware of our .biz, surely<br> > they heard of Leah Gallegos' testimony before the U.S.<br> > Congress on the matter! Surely they knew they were creating<br> > a monstrous internet naming collision by proposing a second<br> > registry for the same TLD! They simply did not care, because<br> > they were expecting big income from the new .biz just as<br> > they expect and recieve from the carefully protected Network<br> > Solutuions and a few other of their friends. Leah finally<br> > curtailed the orgininal .biz in the interest of internet<br> > stability, sacrificing her successful business for the<br> > smooth operation of the very internet ICANN is charged with<br> > protecting! <br><br> Perhaps<br> > ICANN lacked the technical ability to search the internet to<br> > see what TLDs were already in operation when they went to<br> > create new ones? Was it technical ignorance or simple<br> > financial greed that led to that horrible precedent in<br> > internet piracy? It had to be one or the other! Which was<br> > it? <br><br> Since the TLDA,<br> > in conjuction with the Public-Root, is set to publish its<br> > first TapRoot, a listing of all operational TLDs on any<br> > root, anywhere in the world on practically zero budget, I<br> > dare say it must have been pure greed alone. Had they put<br> > out the question for existing TLDs, a chorus of<br> > confirmations would have been returned. No nquestions would<br> > have remained. Deals could have been struck with existing<br> > TLD managers to include them in ICANN's root; but ICANN<br> > never even asked. <br><br> <br> > ICANN wanted no proof for which to feel guilty. They just<br> > wanted another revenue stream from someone who would owe<br> > them a favor, and they got it. The Atlantic Root<br> > Nework's TLDs were perfectly operational on at least one<br> > root server system and often more than one (through<br> > something called cooperation) and had <font<br> > style="font-weight:bold;">many</font><br> > happy SLD holders through a perfectly functional Registry<br> > system. The only difference: . . . we didn't owe them<br> > anything, and were proving that what ICANN does is very<br> > easily and cheaply duplicated. Such a model was dangerous to<br> > the big money schemes that US Government nods kept allowing<br> > ICANN to get away with, appearing to have some special<br> > ability the rest of the world lacked to run an<br> > internet. <br><br> Now<br> > ICANN is pulling away from the US Government auspices<br> > entirely and can be tried more easily for their offenses.<br> > Perhaps the splintering of today's ICANN will finally<br> > allow for true Net Neutrality after all these<br> > years!<br><br> Internet<br> > governance will become a little more work and a little less<br> > rubber-stamping, but the world will benefit greatly. We, the<br> > TLDA stand ready to do our part to assist in the<br> > transition.<br><br>Sincerely<br> > yours,<br>Karl E. Peters, President<br>Top-Level<br> > Domain Association, Inc.<br>USA (912) 638-1638<br> > <br><br>P.S. I will make the first draft of the<br> > TapRoot available on our webiste very soon and a copy may be<br> > had by anyone requesting it at no charge, even ICANN! Write<br> > me if you would like to see what is going on outside the<br> > gates.<br></span></html> <br> > </div>____________________________________________________________<br> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> > governance@lists.cpsr.org<br> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> > governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br> > <br> > For all list information and functions, see:<br> > <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank" mce_href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br> <br> <br> <br> ____________________________________________________________<br> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br> <br> For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank" mce_href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br> </div> </blockquote></font> </span></body></html>