Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP
Eric and all former DNSO GA members,
RICO presupposes that there is criminal intent. I am not sure
that there is in what ICANN has been trying to dictate or confuse
stakeholders/users into. Same is true for the ALAC. Yet it is
fairly obvious that new TLD's are desired, and many outside the
legacy root structure are in use and have been for some time now.
Hence perhaps that fact can be considered prima fascia evidence
as to proving up a potential RICO case. But even that is still
problematic, and no one seems to be all that interested thus far,
yet much of this info has been known for well over two years now.
What is also somewhat obvious is that sTLD's, gTLD's and
cTLD's are needed (sTLD's and cTLD's in particular) for segments
of the stakeholder/user community. It is also obvious that the
past lottery selection process that ICANN engaged in, was
ill advised and produced a bigger mess in the name space than
previously existed and was strongly advised against by a host
of stakeholders/users to the ICANN BOD and staff. Yet ALL
of that was ignored or not given the consideration that was known
at the time to be reasonable and prudent, and the mess was created
by the than ICANN BoD and staff anyway.
What is also very obvious and growing more so, is that the ALAC
seemingly deliberately is restricting and/or selectively determining
what setakeholders/users have unfettered and considered access
to the process. Yes, this is a process problem which is not
popular amongst ICANN BoD members to discuss or even
hear. Yet it still exists and is continuing to hamper good
and reasonable progress as well as engender lack of trust
in ICANN in it's now yet again manipulated and skewed
form.
Eric Dierker wrote:
> There is criminal intent here and some should examine their motives.
> RICO is not a game and TR should be mindful.
> e
>
> > George and all former DNSO GA members,
> >
> > I can see from the links you so kindly provided that
> >some comments are missing from
> >http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/new-gtlds/ to which I had sent in two
> >postings.
> >
> > In any event I agree that there are likely enough TLD's now for
> > most stakeholders/users purposes. But that is really not the
> > point, is it? The actual number or type of TLD's should be
> > determined by what the market place will bare of support
> > as per the stakeholders/users. So I don't think we know how
> > many that is or what *Type* those potential TLD's are.
> >
> > What I DO know is that is that the ALAC cannot and does
> > not speak for the stakeholders/users legitimately and that our
> > members are supportive of many more new gTLD's as well
> > as cTLD's that have no encumbrance as to registry or
> > registrar management dictated by ICANN without a vote
> > by any and all interested parties and/or participating
> >stakeholders/users.
> >
> > George Kikos wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think that responppse would have greater legitimacy if it was
> >> written AFTER widespread discussions, and not before. I don't see much
> >> discussion at:
> >>
> >> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/
> >> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/new-gtlds/ (1 post, May 2003)
> >> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/general/ (1 post, April 2003)
> >> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/misc/ (5 of the 10 by "Jeff
> >> Williams", so you know how little that means)
> >>
> >> Why doesn't the ALAC lead discussions on the GA list, which has been
> >> active in the past on numerous issues?
> >>
> >> If conference calls have been taking place, shouldn't those be
> >> recorded and turned into MP3 files? (sorry if I missed links to any
> >> past ones)
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> George Kirikos
> >> http://www.kirikos.com/
> >>
> >> P.S. My position would be that no new TLDs be added, until such time
> >> as the success/failure of the prior ones has been determined.
> >> Personally, I think there are more than enough TLDs already (and
> >> ccTLDs)... If there are going to be new ones, they should be greatly
> >> differentiated from existing ones, instead of 'clones' that attempt to
> >> basically siphon demand from .com (i.e. .web, new.net and other
> >> pretenders). Or if they are clones, should propose greatly reduced
> >> pricing for the benefit of registrants (which you won't see if you're
> >> simply auctioning off the TLDs, as then the incentives are to maximize
> >> profits once one obtains the license). .com's registry operation would
> >> ideally be up for tender at some point, too, in order to reduce costs
> >> to registrants.
> >>
> >> More thought should be given to the needs of individual registrants,
> >> the ultimate consumers of TLDs, and not just the
> >> registry/registrar/ICANN staff (i.e. all the extra "make work"
> >> projects and worldwide travel in evaluating TLD proposals) as
> >> beneficiaries.
> >>
> >> --- Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > The ALAC is soliciting comments on this until September 7. Feel
> >> > free to comment either to this list or to forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > --
> >> > Thomas Roessler
> >> > <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Forwarded message from Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> -----
> >> >
> >> > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > To: Interim ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:35:02 -0700
> >> > Subject: [alac] Suggested response to sTLD RFP
> >> > X-Spam-Level:
> >> >
> >> > is attached (RTF) and below. This is meant to reflect ALAC
> >> > conversations and discussions on our conference calls and on-list.
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >> > --Wendy
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> > Pierre Abelard
> > ===============================================================
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801