Re: [ga] New TLDs PDP -- Should new TLDs be Introduced?

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

If you are interested in offering advice to the ICANN
Board via the Public Comment portion of a PDP devoted
to new TLDs, then I invite you to participate.  I
intend to contribute.  What you decide to do is up to
you, but I would ask that if you aren't going to
engage in some work on this issue, that you don't
hinder the work that others would like to get
accomplished.

regards,
Danny 

--- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other
> interested
> stakeholders/users,
> 
> With all due respect Danny, who is the "WE" in which
> you are referring
> to?
> 
> If the "WE", as I suspect or understand your post,
> is the participants
> of this forum, than isn't it likely that the GNSO
> "Committee" for
> determining
> the future of new gTLD's are not going to pay much
> mind as the GA is
> defunct?
> 
> I respect what I think you are trying to do here,
> but given the results
> of
> Vancouver and long ago MDR, what you are suggesting
> to do is
> likely an exercise in futility as this committee
> cannot consider such
> discussion or results of same seriously due to the
> GA being defunct.
> 
> Danny Younger wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted
> to
> > implement a PDP on New TLDS.  This vote starts the
> > clock ticking.  The Council decided not to convene
> a
> > task force, but rather, to convene a Committee of
> the
> > Whole to handle this PDP.  Per the bylaws, the
> GNSO
> > Policy Development Process requires that all
> > Constituency Statements and Public Comment
> Statements
> > be submitted to the Staff Manager within
> thirty-five
> > calendar days after initiation of the PDP.
> >
> > We have 32 days left to prepare and submit a
> > statement.
> >
> > The Terms of Reference for the PDP are divided
> into
> > four sections (listed below).  I propose the
> following
> > -- we use a week to discuss/debate each of the
> > sections and the remaining days to draft a
> statement.
> > Each week I will draft a synopsis of the
> discussions
> > for further comment.
> >
> > The first section states:
> >
> > "1. Should new generic top level domain names be
> > introduced?
> >
> > a. Given the information provided here and any
> other
> > relevant information available to the GNSO, the
> GNSO
> > should assess whether
> > there is sufficient support within the Internet
> > community to enable the introduction of new top
> level
> > domains. If this is the case the following
> additional
> > terms of reference are applicable."
> >
> > -- This will be our topic for this week -- should
> new
> > TLDs be introduced?
> >
> > The remainder of the terms of reference:
> >
> > 2.  Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains
> >
> > a.  [Taking into account ] the existing selection
> > criteria from previous top level domain
> application
> > processes and relevant
> > criteria in registry services re-allocations,
> develop
> > modified or new criteria which specifically
> address
> > ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability
> of
> > the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which
> the
> > allocation of new top level domains can meet
> demands
> > for broader use of the Internet in developing
> > countries.
> >
> > b.  Examine whether preferential selection
> criteria
> > (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would
> > encourage new and innovative ways of addressing
> the
> > needs of Internet users.
> >
> > c.  Examine whether additional criteria need to be
> > developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring
> the
> > security and stability of the Internet.
> >
> > 3.  Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains
> >
> > a.  Using the experience gained in previous
> rounds,
> > develop  allocation methods for selecting new top
> > level domain names.
> >
> > b.  Examine the full range of allocation methods
> > including
> > auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and
> > comparative evaluation to determine the methods of
> > allocation that best enhance user choice while not
> > compromising predictability and stability.
> >
> > c.  Examine how allocation methods could be used
> to
> > achieve
> > ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain
> name
> > registration services and encouraging a diverse
> range
> > of registry services providers.
> >
> > 4   Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New
> Top
> > Level Domains
> >
> > a.  Using the experience of previous rounds of top
> > level domain name application processes and the
> recent
> > amendments to
> > registry services agreements, develop policies to
> > guide the contractual criteria which are publicly
> > available prior to any application rounds.
> >
> > b.  Determine what policies are necessary to
> provide
> > security and stability of registry services.
> >
> > c.  Determine appropriate policies to guide a
> > contractual compliance programme for registry
> > services.
> >
> > --- Let the discussion begin ---
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k
> members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and
> not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore
> Roosevelt
> 
> "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.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs