Re: [ga] Introducing changes based on a consensus process

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Introducing changes based on a consensus processI'd like to thank Tom for coming online here. He is defending his innovations and although I have criticised them I respect his right to argue a case. I want to make the brief point that I do not know Tom and my comments centre on process and policy, and not on Tom's private self. People are allowed to be entrepreneurial and I have brothers who are and I like them for that.

There are broader implications that arise from the specifics of the .Pro case and this affair has maybe brought them into focus: for example - just how viable is the concept of "restricted" TLDs? I believe they are viable, but an interesting alternative viewpoint has been expressed today by Joe Alagna in the 5th response to my article at CircleID: http://www.circleid.com/article/1023_0_1_0_C/

"As far as I'm concerned, we can add as many specialized domains as we want. But let's stop trying to restrict who can register them or how they can be used. That experiment has failed. The public will always find a way around it and then the original intent is lost."

I take a different view but the issue deserves to be discussed in the context of the Proof of Concept of which .Pro is a part. However, my point is that it is not the role of a registrar (or domain name speculators) to re-define the outcomes of a previously agreed policy. There should not have been a fait accomplis. These matters should have been, and still should be, matters for open discussion and consultation.

With another restricted TLD like .travel in prospect, this discussion (and review of Agreements?) is urgent and necessary.

With kind regards,

Richard Henderson
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Thomas Barrett - EnCirca 
  To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 8:55 PM
  Subject: [ga] Introducing changes based on a consensus process


  Richard said: 
  "The entire DNS industry should ensure that the public has the highest confidence that changes are being introduced to the DNS according to a well-defined process based on consensus... The Internet Community, as well as the various ICANN constituencies deserves clarity in the process ICANN uses."

  I wonder if you can guess which registrar said that?

  =============

  Dear Richard,

  I'll own up to this! 
  And I'll be looking for your full support in insisting that a consensus process be followed for any contractual admendments that you, ICANN or anyone else wants to propose for .pro.

  Thanks in advance,

  Tom Barrett
  EnCirca, Inc.