What MM just said, plus:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><br>
I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Originally is was help to break the Monopoly (now held by Veri$ign) over .com, ..net and .org (well, was .org, but is no longer). Would you rather have on US private corp as registry for 90%+ of domain names?</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to
relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and
such, and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the
registries to sell second level domains in the open market on a non
discriminatory basis??</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>registrars do this, no? Having registries do it, would have meant giving more power to Verisign, which i doubt is what you want.</div><div><br></div><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further
privatise anything and everything that conceivably can be privatised
and perpetual rents extracted for the benefit of the most powerful,
in the true spirit of the resplendent neoliberal march. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Because you are not involved.</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>