Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management

["John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog () adns net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vadim Antonov" <avg () exigengroup com>
To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" <nanog () adns net>
Cc: <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: ICANN - The Case for Replacing its Management


> You can always have as many domains as you wish -- inside your zone.
> Short words is a scarce resource, and therefore their use must be 
> rationed in some way.  

Thats up to the TLD holder to decide, not for some regulatory body
that claims to have the right to control what all TLD Holders do.

Thats why we have multiple root server networks now, because ICANN
wont recognize established TLDs unless these registries sign their lives 
away (and the rights/lives of their registrars and registrants) to ICANN.

ICANN is a monopoly at the root level. In its current form, it MUST die
if the internet is to remain free. The proposed new form is even more 
hideous.

We operate one of the ORSC root servers (H.ROOT-SERVERS.ORSC) and
have seen a FIVE FOLD increase in traffic since the "big announcement" 
yesterday. 

> The pure market approach (i.e. selling them for 
> flat rate) doesn't seem to be sufficient for squatter deterrence (they 
> nearly always lose in court, but this may be prohibitively expensive for 
> those who have legitimate reasons for obtaining those domain names).

Squatter = = someone who swipes a domain name that is someone else's
trademark. I'm not talking about those. There are people who register
common words like HOUSES.USA and GREEN.EARTH. There is 
nothing wrong with that. Our registry WILL NOT impose unneccessary
restrictions on our customers.

> --vadim

John