Comments

Mason Cole October 4, 2012

Malcolm,

Donuts is well aware of the discussion of our participation in ICANN’s gTLD expansion. It’s remarkable that there’s been so much coverage of an error-filled letter apparently assumed to be true, and almost no effort to verify the actual facts with Donuts. If you’re interested, I invite you to contact us and we’ll put them on the table for you.

Also, perhaps it would be interesting to discover who’s hiding behind the lawyers producing this letter. Public attacks are sometimes de rigueur for companies with ambitious plans, but hiring someone to do it for you is different from bringing your concerns forward for a reasoned discussion.

For the record, Donuts is prepare to run safe and secure gTLD registries. We are not interested in allowing fraud or abusive behavior, and in our applications detail precisely what we will do to prevent it, or to address it if something were to happen. Our list of protections goes well above those mandated by ICANN, and we intend to continue to consult with law enforcement (as we have already) and others to be sure Donuts’ gTLDs are secure and stable.

The work we’re doing now leading up to the launch of new gTLDs is hardly indicative of a company that does nothing, you can be assured.

Malcolm James October 5, 2012

Mason,

Thanks for weighing in on this. It’s reassuring to hear that you want to improve the Internet’s footprint. It would be helpful to get your perspective on Donut’s plans and perhaps put to rest some of the concerns expressed by the unnamed groups referenced in the Post article.

Jessica Craig October 5, 2012

It is just plain wrong to allow a company to have monopoly over domains. ICANN shouldn’t allow this or are they interested only in the money they will get? Also, I find it ridiculous to justify this shopping spree with fears of spam.

Mason Cole October 6, 2012

Sure, please contact me at the email address attached to this comment. Thanks.

It would have been better for the anonymous party to have its facts straight, have reviewed the protections outlined in our applications, and conducted him or herself reasonably. But we’re happy to provide the actual facts nonetheless.

  • (required)
  • (required)