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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

As the GA list/forum is as I previously stated "defunct" and only still
exits as a means of air grievances, it was my intent as I thought
was clear in my remarks, that any "Work" to be done regarding
gTLD's  is not likely and I would contend never going to be considered
on this list.

This however does not exclude bouncing off ideas to the few still
remaining on this list, is not a good exercise.  However to characterize

such as "Work" within ICANN, is folly.

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
>

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