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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

  As you yourself have stated along with many other stakeholders/users,
there is no legitimate "Consensus Process" within or outside of the
skewed ICANN structure as there is no legitimate AT-Large body.
In addition Consensus must be measured before a consensus can
be accurately determined and/or legitimately recognized.

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    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.
>
>

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