Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs
Dear Richard,
could you provide please a serious rationale for new gTLDs?
As much I am for million TLDs, I do not see any advantage in any new single
gTLD except to please friends.
jfc
At 17:28 01/11/03, Richard Henderson wrote:
I think the GNSO Council did well, in challenging the ICANN Board over its
13th October pronouncement that the next sTLDs were to be shelved.
The resolution the GNSO Council hammered out in Carthage was needed and
constructive, and I find it encouraging that the ICANN Board did a U-turn
afterwards and re-instated the proposed introduction of more sTLDs.
Of greater long-term significance is the evolution of a programme and
process to introduce many more gTLDs, and to have that process ready by
the end of 2004. The language of the Board seemed to indicate that they
were now finally getting ready to open the doors to significant additional
gTLDs. And that this will occur not in 'rounds' of TLD selection, but as
and when a potential registry seeks to apply. There will be criteria, and
if the registry satisfies the criteria, then it will operate.
Clearly the coming consultations and work are important to define the
process by which this will take place, and the GNSO has a central role in
this. Maybe I am being over-optimistic, but I picked up the sense that a
hard-pressed Paul Twomey and ICANN were finally wanting to really involve
their constituencies in a more bottom-up process.
If ICANN wants people from all constituencies to pull together and 'start
a new phase' of co-operation, then it needs to 'take the risk' of trusting
a little more, and embracing openness and greater responsiveness.
A further big step forward would be for ICANN to recognise the significant
credibility *and support* it could gain by 'individualising' ALAC - in
other words by actively promoting the principle of one-person-one-vote in
all its RALOs, and thereby starting to attract the significant numbers of
At Large participants who could make a useful and informed contribution to
ICANN's processes, while adding to its legitimacy.
If the ALAC and its RALOs were to be developed along a democratic model
(rather than an organisation-based model); and if ICANN recognised the
significance of the Internet Users by restoring (say) 2 At Large
representatives to the Board (elected from verified individual members of
each RALO or by democratically elected delegates); then it would be
possible to see an At Large constituency which was more than just the
present role-play, and indeed capable of supporting ICANN's processes and
work. A much larger number of people would think it was worth joining and
participating.
The ICANN Board started to give some ground at Carthage and even (horror!
shock!) showed signs of listening and looking for help from others. Paul
Twomey showed intelligence and ability in his deliveries and
presentations. If ICANN could only build on this trust, and truly embrace
bottom-up principles, then we could (against expectations) be entering a
phase of co-operation and legitimacy.
That *has* to be the sensible and only way to proceed.
At present, that has all to be proved. But I thought the GNSO Council did
well in helping to get the sTLD decision reversed.
Thanks!
...
Richard Henderson