Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jefsey and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> At 17:08 02/11/03, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> >If people are willing to pay for them , and there is no downside, where is
> >the problem?
>
> Which people. Trapped TM holders or corporations interested in purchasng a
> gTLD from ICANN?

 First off, answering a question with another question is not an answer
at all.  However to answer, TM holders are not trapped, as they can
always abandon or otherwise dispose of their TM's, and it really
doesn't matter as both can or should be able to have a gTLD if
they wish and can manage same.

  It seems that .FRCM and .FRNC would/might be good c/gTLD's
to potentially compete with .FR, here in the US...  But such
may also be a potential and understandable ecommerce concern
for the French Govt...  It has been rumored that Andy Rove
has expressed some interest in these potential c/gTLD's...

>
> jfc
>
> >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.<--

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