[governance] new gTLDs

[Carlos A. Afonso]

I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain
name proponents? I would not dare to assume anything before doing this.
In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big
domain companies will keep most of the pie.

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 08/17/2012 04:09 PM, McTim wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

-------------- 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