Re: [ga] Good work by GNSO on sTLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  The whole concept or "sTLD's" is a flawed one.  The process by what
type
of TLD's should be introduced should be a market driven and determined
one, not one determined by a paltry few stakeholders/users as such
will not likely meet the needs of stakeholders/users in a free
marketplace.
Hence, INEGroup members cannot at this time endorse such a skewed
and non-market driven and determined Stuart Lynn decided types of
TLD's that may be in demand..

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    HelpI 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
>
>
>

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