Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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