[governance] new gTLDs

[McTim]

What MM just said, plus:

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

>
> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve?
>


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?




> 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??
>

registrars do this, no?  Having registries do it, would have meant giving
more power to Verisign, which i doubt is what you want.



> 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.
>


Because you are not involved.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120817/7d2c698d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t