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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Jeff and Eric,

I would like to get your opinion on whether we should
have new gTLDs "at this time".  I have appreciated the
input from Randy Glass (America-at-Large) who argues
that ICANN doesn't have its house in order yet.  He
points to Mike Palage's contribution, a White Paper on
suggested procedures to deal with Registry Failure, as
an example of why ICANN is not yet ready to move
forward with new TLDs.  I would argue that the lack of
registrar escrow provisioning and other such factors
seem to favor a postponement of new TLDs in the
immediate short term ahead.  What is your opinion?

--- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jeff you remind me of your old friend Walsh.
>   Whatever negative can be said about moving forward
> we are sure to hear about it from you. How can you
> say what is produced from this list is not
> considered by others within and without ICANN. (you
> claim to represent 100K engineers, don't they
> consider what you tell them?) Even with my dribble i
> get comments back from BoD members and GNSO members
> and we know Danny does. I have recieved comments
> from DoC and my Senator regarding matters raised
> here.
>   Why is this list alive? Perhaps just so you can
> claim "it does not exist" like Roessler your other
> good friend.
>    
>   e
> 
> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   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 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


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