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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr .Dierker and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Indeed I am a "Subscriber" on this mailing list.  However as the"GA" has

been defunct as you well know, I ask again of Danny, who is the"WE"
to which is addresses and refers?

If the "WE" to which Danny refers are those whom are still "Subscribers"

of this Mailing list, that's just fine.  If however Danny is acting as
though the
GA is still in actual existence as a part of ICANN, than he is mistaken
or otherwise deluded.  The GA has not members any longer as it does
not officially exist as a part of ICANN as you well know...

Therefore discussing gTLD's or any other issue of concern, interest or
consequence to stakeholders/users, is wonderful.  But to do so as though

such discussions of topics of interest to stakeholders/uesr/registrants
are
a collective "Body of work" is delusional as to any potential impact
of determining any policy ICANN may in the future or present, decide.

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 <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