Re: [ga] PLEASE COMMENT: Suggested ALAC response to sTLD RFP

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all former DNSO GA members,

  I can see from the links you so kindly provided that
some comments are missing from http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/new-gtlds/
to which I had sent in two postings.

  In any event I agree that there are likely enough TLD's now for
most stakeholders/users purposes.   But that is really not the
point, is it?  The actual number or type of TLD's should be
determined by what the market place will bare of support
as per the stakeholders/users. So I don't think we know how
many that is or what *Type* those potential TLD's are.

  What I DO know is that is that the ALAC cannot and does
not speak for the stakeholders/users legitimately and that our
members are supportive of many more new gTLD's as well
as cTLD's that have no encumbrance as to registry or
registrar management dictated by ICANN without a vote
by any and all interested parties and/or participating
stakeholders/users.

 George Kikos wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think that responppse would have greater legitimacy if it was written
> AFTER widespread discussions, and not before. I don't see much
> discussion at:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/
> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/new-gtlds/ (1 post, May 2003)
> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/general/ (1 post, April 2003)
> http://forum.icann.org/alac-forum/misc/ (5 of the 10 by "Jeff
> Williams", so you know how little that means)
>
> Why doesn't the ALAC lead discussions on the GA list, which has been
> active in the past on numerous issues?
>
> If conference calls have been taking place, shouldn't those be recorded
> and turned into MP3 files? (sorry if I missed links to any past ones)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> P.S. My position would be that no new TLDs be added, until such time as
> the success/failure of the prior ones has been determined. Personally,
> I think there are more than enough TLDs already (and ccTLDs)... If
> there are going to be new ones, they should be greatly differentiated
> from existing ones, instead of 'clones' that attempt to basically
> siphon demand from .com (i.e. .web, new.net and other pretenders). Or
> if they are clones, should propose greatly reduced pricing for the
> benefit of registrants (which you won't see if you're simply auctioning
> off the TLDs, as then the incentives are to maximize profits once one
> obtains the license). .com's registry operation would ideally be up for
> tender at some point, too, in order to reduce costs to registrants.
>
> More thought should be given to the needs of individual registrants,
> the ultimate consumers of TLDs, and not just the
> registry/registrar/ICANN staff (i.e. all the extra "make work" projects
> and worldwide travel in evaluating TLD proposals) as beneficiaries.
>
> --- Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The ALAC is soliciting comments on this until September 7.  Feel
> > free to comment either to this list or to forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                             <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> -----
> >
> > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: Interim ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 10:35:02 -0700
> > Subject: [alac] Suggested response to sTLD RFP
> > X-Spam-Level:
> >
> > is attached (RTF) and below.  This is meant to reflect ALAC
> > conversations and discussions on our conference calls and on-list.
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --Wendy

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k 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