Open Letter to ICAAN from CIRA

[Zoobar]

As of March 17th CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) will be doing the following until ICAAN cleans themselves up.


Suspend its voluntary contribution of funds to ICANN;
Hold in trust CIRA's voluntary contributions to ICANN;
Suspend consideration of any Accountability Framework;
Decline to host or be a major sponsor of any ICANN event; and
Cease chairing the ccNSO's IANA Working Group.




Original letter can be viewed here.

http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/171.html


.

.

[jdk]

Maybe this will cause a chain reaction until things are cleaned up with ICANN

[NostraDomainus]

Another example of "good" sticking-up against "evil" imo.

I applaud CIRA for taking the high-road and acting in good faith to address ICANN's trend of seemingly wanting to do business more and more in bad faith - which is shameful, but not totally without prediction, knowing how ICANN was and is structured in the first place.

We have seen how much bad faith comes from such Organizations to be protectionist unto their own self-interest despite spreading "propaganda" to say they are here for the people and for the best interest if the Internet.

In the end, the best quote I know that relates to this is:

"Greed Breads Mean Deeds"

It'll be interesting to see how this Soap Opera turns out, as...

Like Sands thru the Hourglass, these, are the Days of our lives!

[NameTower]

Originally Posted by Zoobar

As of March 17th CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) will be doing the following until ICAAN cleans themselves up.


Suspend its voluntary contribution of funds to ICANN;
Hold in trust CIRA's voluntary contributions to ICANN;
Suspend consideration of any Accountability Framework;
Decline to host or be a major sponsor of any ICANN event; and
Cease chairing the ccNSO's IANA Working Group.




Original letter can be viewed here.

http://www.cira.ca/news-releases/171.html


.

.

That is absolutely beautiful.

Way to go Cira, I'm astonishly impressed by this action; I had no idea registry's could take such action and oppose ICANN in such a matter.

Not sure if it would/will make any difference whatsoever with ICANN, but just the fact that CIRA had the balls to speak the truth about this is marvelling.

- Jordan

[nameslave]

How dare them? Good move. :thumbs up: It also shows that individual countries (like China) CAN stand up against ICANN, when it's necessary.

[GeorgeK]

This was reported on ICANNWatch too:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl...09&mode=nested

where a troll (presumably someone who reads DNForum, but is shy to disclose their name) thinks it's "hypocrisy" for domainers to be against VeriSign, since "domainers are monopolists too", lol. Morons.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

This was reported on ICANNWatch too:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl...09&mode=nested

where a troll (presumably someone who reads DNForum, but is shy to disclose their name) thinks it's "hypocrisy" for domainers to be against VeriSign, since "domainers are monopolists too", lol. Morons.

Come on, be honest all domainers are in it for what they can get, myself included. There is no profession as this implies it is backed by some kind of moral code. A moral crusade, give me a break! and if you mean Sarcle, his identity is no great secret!

Rubber Duck

[GeorgeK]

Domainers can be profit maximizers, i.e. "in it for what they can get", yet they are operating in a competitive market, and can be ethical (some are not, e.g. cybersquatters).

VeriSign, in contrast, is a monopolist when it comes to operation of the .com registry, and thus they are fair game for criticism, a "moral crusade", when they abuse or try to extend their monopoly. That criticism can certainly come from ethical domainers.

[Sarcle]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

VeriSign, in contrast, is a monopolist when it comes to operation of the .com registry, and thus they are fair game for criticism, a "moral crusade", when they abuse or try to extend their monopoly. That criticism can certainly come from ethical domainers.

Yes, and everyone that doesn't follow your agenda is a "moron" and "unethical"

Sorry afraid not. Belief's no matter how unpopular they are, are still valid with reason. And doesn't grant you the right to cast those stones at those that disagree.

[GeorgeK]

"Are still valid with reason". That's the entire point, the folks do not follow the rules of logic.

e.g. to say that EVERYONE who owns a .com is a "monopolist" is simply ridiculous. I call them out on that, and they try to defend that position? Go ahead and try.

If EVERYONE who owns a .com is a "monopolist", then that means ALL .com owners who criticize VeriSign are "hypocrites", by the logic that the ICANNWatch poster employed. That also means that the only way a .com owner is NOT a hypocrite is if they either have no opinion, or SUPPORT VeriSign. That obviously makes no sense, and thus the original premise is obviously incorrect.

You're free to support VeriSign all you want. Just don't lump in opponents of VeriSign as "hypocrites", unless you can demonstrate it.

[Sarcle]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

You're free to support VeriSign all you want. Just don't lump in opponents of VeriSign as "hypocrites", unless you can demonstrate it.

That's fine. Then don't lump all supporters as morons and unethical.

[GeorgeK]

I don't lump all supporters as morons and unethical.

It *would be* moronic to say that someone with a 0.001% market share is a "monopolist". Just plain stupid.

Some folks can, ethically, want VeriSign to raise prices....for example, perhaps they think domain prices are too cheap, and it would curb "speculation" or make typosquatting less economic. They're entitled to that opinion. (although, in the example I just provided, there's a better solution, which is to raise ICANN's 25 cent charge, instead of handing over the $$$ to VeriSign) Or, maybe they work at VeriSign, or hold VeriSign shares (although they should disclose that).

If you read the ICANN Board's Supporters reasoning, though, it's extremely weak:

http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-set...-section1.html

Contrast that with those Board members who voted against:

http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-set...-section2.html

And read what the public comments were:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised-settlement/

[Rubber Duck]

The only reason Verisign have a monopoly is because domainers themselves won't buy generic alternatives. It like Nike charging whatever they like for trainers because no one will wear Joe Blogg's Trainers.

If Domainers don't like it they should vote with their feet. Many have, but they just end up in a lonely place using domains their registries struggle to give away.

Don't blame ICANN or Verisign, it is the blinker approach of Joe Public that is the problem. There should not be a problem here except there is no market competition, and if that is down to the end user's own blinkered choice, then I for one don't see a problem!

Most people don't see reg fees of $8 as a problem. Many quite happily pay $35 dollars for exactly the same service, and sometimes not as good. Only the Domain Speculator whinges over the renewal fees, and frankly if it is a big issue, then dump your portfolio, because it ain't going nowhere!

Rubber Duck

[Rarethings]

This is excellent. Finally good to see a company stand up against the "mighty" ICANN. This is what we need.

[NameJet]

Pretty ironic considering CIRA just changed the .CA expiration process in order to hand Pool a near monopoly in the drop auctions.

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by NameJet

Pretty ironic considering CIRA just changed the .CA expiration process in order to hand Pool a near monopoly in the drop auctions.

I think you must be mistaking Wit for Hypocracy here!

Rubber Duck

[NameJet]

Originally Posted by Rubber Duck

I think you must be mistaking Wit for Hypocracy here!

I'd probablly call them hypocrites if they could be taken seriously.

[JMJ]

I wish I could protest and withhold all of my involuntary contributions but I don't have a choice.