Re: [names] New gTLDs

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 04:19 PM 9/23/99 , Mike Roberts wrote:
>Yes, it's true, the solution space for new gTLD's doesn't include
>any more grants of monopoly windfall profits.
>
>But that doesn't have anything to do with me or with ICANN.
>
>It's against the law.


Funny, that.

I wonder why Ira Magaziner, President Clinton's
technology czar, proposed a solution that was 
"against the law" (aka The Green Paper)!

Let's face it Mike, no amount of "spin" will
change the facts -- you have a pre-ordained
agenda, you have no interest in living up to 
the lofty goals of the White Paper, and your 
organization is a sham.

Jay.


>The government essentially admitted it made a mistake, or rather
>the government admitted that good intentions had gone awry in
>the case of its cooperative agreement with NSI, when it placed
>so much emphasis on "robust competition" as a major DNS
>goal in the white paper, and when it negotiated the new competition
>provisions of Amendment 11 with NSI in the summer of 1998.
>
>If NSI had achieved its market dominance on any other basis than
>that of a government contractor, it would have had serious antitrust
>problems a long time ago.
>
>The governmental may be slow, and it may be methodical, but it 
>doesn't usually make the same mistake twice.
>
>I applaud the Nesson proposal.  We need creative new ideas for 
>dealing with a very complex subject, and especially ones that 
>also meet the goals for the DNS set out in the White Paper.
>
>- Mike