Re: [ga] Re: RFC s/gTLDs

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
 
Always good to read your prose. I think you have something here Danny. Your procedure seems well measured and current and appropriate. I think they would like to hear some civility from the public.
 
I hope that your process suggestion here works and if it does that it remains in place. This is just one such RFC that needs integration into a system of synergy that includes marketing and popularity and ease of dependability. We used to say something like; "stability, reliability and security". While these watchwords are used in the technical aspect they often seem forgotten in the policy and procedural world where they are equally valuable and a reflection of solid foundations.
 
So I will write off to - ALAC - and request that they "begin a policy-development process in the GNSO Names Council by calling for creation of an Issue Report" with the GNSO.
 
OTOH, I will just cc them and the comment forum on these matters.
 
Thank you for your advice.
 
Eric 

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Eric:

With regard to "appropriate practical policy guidance"
pertaining to tld-acceptance issues, you should take
note of the fact that the topic was recently discussed
in the Cross Constituency meeting at Kuala Lumpur. 
John Klensin, author of the RFC that you have
referenced, identified the source of the problem at
that meeting as "software throughout small companies" 
(notes on the session can be found in the Business
Constituency Archives). 

The Business Constituency has proposed an Action --
"Develop specific actions to propose to ICANN,
including communication scripts, notices on relevant
lists, etc. Perhaps ask Vint Cerf for an advisory to
System Administrators with some suggested actions to
take. BC, ISPCP will discuss path forward for next
steps with ICANN."

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any further discussion
on this matter on the ISPCP discussion list, and I am
not able to review the BC discussion list (as that
constituency has chosen not to abide by the generally
accepted principle of list transparency), so I don't
know what progress has been made in the last few
months. You might wish to contact the chairs of the
BC and ISPCP to inquire as to their recent efforts.

If you are concerned by the policy aspects of this
issue and are not currently a Constituency member, I
would suggest that you contact an ICANN Advisory
Committee (such as the ALAC) that can begin a
policy-development process in the GNSO Names Council
by calling for creation of an Issue Report -- they
might actually be pleased to get some mail from a
member of the public, and it might be nice to actually
see them doing something other than preparing new
nesting grounds for ISOC chapters :) 

Best regards,

Danny Younger
dannyyounger(at)yahoo.com





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com