[governance] new gTLDs

[Adam Peake]

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix <dl at panamo.eu> wrote:
> Yes, Carlos, interesting points here:
>
> - applicants : 3/4 are US companies, unless you believe that Verisign is a
> small swiss ltd cie, and so on.
> - backoffice operators : 3/4 are a small bunch of US companies. Again
> Verisign : 250 TLDs.
> Details coming soon in a next mail.
>
> US are 10% of Internet users nowadays. And English language 25% of contents.
> Where are the bugs ?
>

Outreach? The bug was Rod Beckstrom. OK, not entirely, but probably
enough to matter.  He did a poor job.

Adam



> Best regards,
>
> @+, Dominique Lacroix
>
> --
> Dominique Lacroix
> Société européenne de l'Internet
> http://www.ies-france.eu
> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14
>
>
>
> Le 17/08/12 22:35, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit :
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

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