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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
   
  Many are not aware that languages are necessary to explain cultural understanding of oneself. In some languages a rock falls to the earth in others the earth rizes to the rock and hence gravity has different meanings. The difference between translation and interpretation is lost on most. My funny use of languages requires me to say; My Vietnamese is terrible, My Spanish is out of practice, My French an embarrassment, My Navajo is in the wind, and my German is forbidden for me to speak. First it must be "My" possession then i must take the language culture to explain basically the same thing, that my use of that language is difficult as my tongue is not well suited to other lingua.
   
  My point is two-fold. To begin with this author from slashdot knows less about languages and the relative significance of words within his own language than a two year old. 
  And, it should go without saying all of us learn more from every incremental increase of use of differing languages than from a year of study. We must expand our uses and we must safeguard that expansion so that it is not corrupted.
   
  e

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

You ask, "why any more in English?". For what it's
worth, I spotted a comment on Slashdot the other day
that takes an opposing view:

"Forget domains, they are practially meaningless
anyway (Delic.io.us). And this other language crup.
I'm sorry, people want to learn English. Not becuase
they don't like their one native language --far from
it, no dount they love their own culture. But simply
because people also want to participate in a global
community --that requires a global lanaguage. By
happen stance of history tht langauge has become
English. If you start promoting dividing the web into
smaller and smaller ethnic spheres you will hamper the
greatest achivement of the Internet, connecting us to
each other."
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169960&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=230&tid=95&tid=103&tid=219&mode=thread&pid=14167506

>From my point of view, however, the ideal of a
universal/global trading language needs to take a back
seat to reality of the demands of cultures/languages
without their own distinct namespace. I see a value
in, for example, a French-language namespace, but I
don't see this as something that the folks at .fr
would necessarily operate (as there are other
french-speaking communities or sponsoring groups
throughout the world that might operate a
french-language registry equally well).

Personally, I have no objection in principle to a
hiatus on "English" TLDs for a while. Your mileage
may differ...



--- Hugh Dierker wrote:

> Jeff, Danny et. al,
> 
> You seem to be writing on a defunct list. Is your
> writing an halucination? "We" is clearly a list
> membership here. And contrary to your, and all of
> your members understanding this list is listened to.
> If you do not get emails from matters emanating from
> this list - well nuff said.
> 
> Danny count this poorly educated and illiterate
> boy as part of we. Would you suggest breaking down
> the statement into subcategories and prepare them
> openly here with input. Then ask for a "yea or neah"
> vote of consensus confidence or no confidence?
> 
> I have preferences, which I will set aside to look
> at both sides. For instance "should we" is a typical
> question of supply and demand where we must look
> into the people in business that need the shortage
> (real or percieved) to keep pricing structures
> stable. OTOH we must be cognisant of the developing
> nations and peculiar needs of small minority groups
> and then again the common consumer.
> We are most comfortable with non changing status
> quos, however change and adaption is critical to
> continued and productive growth. Along these lines
> are Multilingualism at its' peak - Why any more in
> English? The pros and cons of most situations are
> obvious.
> 
> e
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Williams 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
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===




__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com 

  


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