Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs
Jefsey and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
There are many good rationales for gTLD's and sTLD's as well. They
have been discussed on this forum amongst others many times before,
as you well should know. Perhaps a review of the archives of those
discussions would be the first place you should look before asking
anyone to rehash them yet again.
What is also well known is that a very tiny group mostly made up
or ICANN BoD members, staff members and later Registries created
as a result of the skewed MDR2000 fiasco, were against any new
gTLD's due to competition fears with those questionable determined
gTLD Registries... This is classic restraint of trade activity... And
should not be allowed to stand or continue... Yet the ICANN BoD
and the GNSO, which is not adequately represented by stakeholders/users
seems to be politically maneuvering to just such a restraint...
It is also completely understandable that France's .FR ccTLD
would also find that new competition in a gTLD, would be
challenging to that registry and any other ccTLD registry. Yet
to use that challenge in the form of any number of new gTLD's
as a rational for not allowing for them to freely be created
and added to the created newer ones form MDR2000,
is yet again a restraint of free trade in the arbitrary extreme,
and therefore should not be a qualifying rational for said
restriction of creating and encouraging such competition...
We find that to use a public resource such as the DNS
in such a way that would in any way restrict without
strong merit, the creation and addition of gTLD's or
sTLD's is one that can only represent a restraint
of trade in ecommerce to great and broad degree.
J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> 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
> >
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k 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