Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If people are willing to pay for them , and there is no downside, where is
the problem?


On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, 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
> >
> 
> 

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@xxxxxx
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                         -->It's hot here.<--