[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [names] Image Online Design on ICANN
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:44:25 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com (Esther Dyson), firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <199910282243.PAA19947@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
- References: <19991028201255359.AAA91@gromit.edventure.com@karachinsky>
At 06:43 PM 10/28/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
>Just for the record, the assertions contained in the following
>email with regard to statements I am alleged to have made are
>completely without factual substance and do not represent my
>views or the views of any ICANN person to the best of my
>- Mike Roberts
Here's is what started it all:
>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 02:48:58 -0400
>To: [a reporter]
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
>Here's where Mike Roberts informs everyone
>that he's decided that prior claims to TLDs
>are not valid, are not going to be considered,
>even though this is in direct contradiction to
>the White Paper's approach of a bottom-up
>consensus process to answer this question.
>Also, note that this decision was announced on
>*JANUARY* 19th, 1999, before both the Singapore
>and the Berlin ICANN Board meetings, before the
>DNSO had even been recognized.
>>(Mr. Mike Roberts):
>>"whatever we do about new top-level domains, one of the clear
>>antecedent requirements of that is that we don't make what
>>appears to be a monopoly profit grant. Now there are a lot
>>of mechanisms for dealing with that and we are going to hear
>>a lot of input on that, but I just wanted to sort of get that
>>message out there because we are no longer if we ever were,
>>we are no longer in an Oklahoma land rush approach to the
>>creation of new TLDs. "
Then, on the Harvard list, Mike admitted that
he had said it, and he confirmed that I had
interpreted it correctly.
Mike, which assertions are you denying?
> > Competitive TLDs *will* be considered by the ICANN board if such a proposal
> > comes before us. The outcome is still unknown.
> > Esther Dyson
Given Mike's comments outlined above, given
the gerrymandered DNSO, and given ICANN's
total disregard for process as described in
this Small Business Administration Advisory:
the outcome seems all too certain!
> > At 11:08 am 10/28/1999 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
> > >
> > >Others wishing to make *their* position
> > >on ICANN part of the public record may
> > >contact Fenello.com for assistance.
> > >
> > >FYI:
> > >
> > >http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/
> > >-1999/0001061640
> > >
> > >Image Online Design Issues Statement on ICANN
> > >
> > >SAN LUIS OBISPO, October 28 /PRNewswire/ -- Image Online Design, Inc.
> > ><www.webtld.com>, "The .Web Internet Domain Registry(tm)", the longest
> > >standing prospective registry for a new Top Level Domain, today
> responded to
> > >comments made by ICANN Board members on the Harvard Law School's IS99
> > >list <news://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IS99-names>.
> > >
> > >IODesign takes exception to recent comments from Mike Roberts,
> president of
> > >ICANN, when he admitted that competitive TLDs will not be considered
> by the
> > >ICANN board. This is in direct violation of the ICANN by-laws, and in
> > >opposition to the intent of the White Paper. [His admission caused
> > >another prospective registry, to suspend operations.]
> > >
New Media Relations