<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>So, what would you have then against Verisign?<br><br>Sent from a tablet</div><div><br>On 17/08/2012, at 23:59, McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca" target="_blank">ca@cafonso.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain<br>
name proponents?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>You are mixing apples and oranges. I identified the public interest being served by allowing more gTLDs.</div><div><br></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">
I would not dare to assume anything before doing this.<br>
In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big<br>
domain companies will keep most of the pie.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Would you serve a greater public interest by denying orgs the ability to apply for the name they want because they may be large/corporate/rich/US orgs?
</div><div><br></div><div> </div></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>
</div></blockquote></body></html>