Re: [ga] New gTLDs Evaluation Report finally published by ICANN

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  ICANN is not and has as far back as 1999 been anti-stakeholder/user
or Domain name holder/registrant.  Despite the MoU and White Papers
which created ICANN, and many concerns directed to the various
ICANN BoD's and Staff as well as directly to DOC/NTIA, adequately
addressing this prevailing and well recognized "Attitude Problem" which
ICANN harbors has not changed in a direction that is healthy for the
DNS, or the internet as a whole...

 As for Louis Touton, anyone that takes most of his ideas or thoughts
seriously has got to be a few bricks short of a load...  :(

Richard Henderson wrote:

>
> A day after ICANNWatch published the article on the missing New gTLDs
> Evaluation Report... it has finally (after 45 days in ICANN's hands)
> been published here:
>
> http://www.icann.org
> tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf">http://www.icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-eval-31aug04.pdf
>
> This report merits very close reading, and draws attention to some
> (but not all) the misjudgements and mistakes made by ICANN, the
> Registries, and certain registrars.
>
> It supports the views of many, that the launch of the New gTLDs was
> poorly handled in various areas, and that much more could have been
> done both by ICANN and certain Registries to address the problems
> which impacted on ordinary consumers.
>
> I'm extremely unimpressed by Louis Touton's reported view that 'the
> introduction of competition to the market' was more important than
> responding to individual's problems and dealing with those.
>
> This re-inforces my view that ICANN's "laissez-faire" philosophy was
> the result of politics and dogma - regardless of the rights of
> individual registrants, and regardless of the fact that ICANN's MoU
> with DOC states ICANN's responsibility to ensure the "fair
> distribution" of the DNS.
>
> It seems, in retrospect, that Registries and Registrars were allowed
> to get away with much too much, because ICANN was pursuing a political
> and dogma-driven goal, and just wanted it to roll, even if consumers
> concerns had to be sidelined in the process.
>
> Dan Halloran's refusal to respond to specific consumer concerns, or
> even to acknowledge mail, over a period in excess of 2 years, could be
> interpreted as fitting into this ICANN outlook.
>
> Miriam Sapiro and her team make some clear observations on how things
> could have been done better, and *should* be done better in future.
>
> That's why it is imperative that this report is published, read and
> discussed.
>
> There are lessons to be learned.
>
> 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

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827