Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard asks:  "Anyway, just to be clear Danny: are
you proposing that as a group we try to create a
shared document to speak for Individual Users? Or some
of them."

Just to be clear, we are a few people that have chosen
to continue discussing DNS issues on this list even
after the Board formally dissolved the GA.  We are all
veterans of the ICANN process.  We can't necessarily
speak on behalf of the world's Internet Users, but we
can speak on behalf of ourselves as  reasonably
well-informed long-time participants in the DNSO/GNSO.


The limited time-frame for this Public Comment
exercise leaves no opportunity for traditional
consensus-development mechanisms to work their magic. 
Each point of the GNSO Terms of Reference can only be
discussed for a mere week which certainly isn't long
enough for a thorough discussion or evaluation of the
merits of different positions.

As such, all that we can do is present the different
views expressed on this list without staking a claim
on a consensus viewpoint.  A document that presents
our varied or unified thoughts (whatever happens to be
the case) will be put together and will be submitted
as part of the PDP Public Comment segment.



--- Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> If we want to speak collectively on behalf of
> Internet Users in anticipation
> of a future voice as a Constituency within ICANN's
> GNSO structure, then I
> suggest the method we use in any paper we construct
> should NOT be to come
> down on one side or on another side, but to say:
> "These are the views that
> need consideration", ranging from Karl's view to the
> view of those who take
> a more cautious line. Then we fairly and openly list
> the pros and cons.
> Among any group of Internet Users there are going to
> be those who have
> invested already in TLDs and don't want to see
> further dilution, and those
> who want an explosion of NEW TLDs providing the
> market bears them up (or
> even if it doesn't). There will be those who believe
> that anyone should be
> able to launch a TLD in the Marketplace providing
> they meet fair and defined
> criteria; and there will be those who say that the
> Maerketplace should be
> subordinated to the orderly development of a TLD
> policy, a taxonomy, and
> consideration of how TLDs will be categorised and
> structured.
> 
> What I am saying is that there must be such a range
> of opinions and ideas,
> that any collective presentation from Individual
> Users should be very open
> and responsibly look at all options.
> 
> We shouls also analyse the Agreements that have
> previously been used and how
> they can be improved; how those Agreements have been
> flouted; compliance
> issues and possible sanctions written into contracts
> / agreements; the
> previous experience (and problems) with launches;
> the best ways to prevent
> registrar exploitation of their privileges; the
> problem posed by POOL.com
> and others with their large numbers of what some
> might call 'shell'
> registrars; the issue of restricted TLDs and the way
> in which some
> registrars like EnCirca have got round these
> restrictions by acting as proxy
> registrants; the question of local isentity and the
> demand for local TLDs
> apart from at a country level; the implications of
> IDNs; the issue of why
> ICANN should have any right to judge who 'deserves'
> the next TLDs; the
> possibility of independent and international
> assessment panels working
> within agreed criteria; the extent of financial
> commitment that any new
> registry should offer to prevent frivolous projects.
> 
> In the end, if there is a proliferation of New TLDs
> then it will probably
> have the paradoxical effect of making .com and
> search engines even more
> important than they already are. In contrast, if
> 1000 New TLDs were to
> emerge in 10 years it would be fine, but the demand
> for names in all these
> TLDs would run out and speculators would probably
> find that investments in
> lesser TLDs like .info and .biz would diminish in
> value. Then again, you
> might say that has already occurred, when you see
> the failure of .biz to
> emerge as a poor relation of .com; or the way .info
> has offered their names
> for virtually zero from time to time in a desperate
> effort to maintain
> registration levels.
> 
> Anyway, just to be clear Danny: are you proposing
> that as a group we try to
> create a shared document to speak for Individual
> Users? Or some of them. If
> so, I can work at this after December 17th, but
> before then I am deeply
> committed both personally, medically and
> professionally.
> 
> Richard H
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>;
> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs
> 
> 
> > Karl, Danny et al.,
> >
> > I have to disagree with you Karl.  Though I didn't
> know Jon Postel
> > personally, based on his comments in RFC 1591,
> specifically:
> >
> > "In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of
> computers there is a hierarchy
> > of names.  The root of system is unnamed.  There
> are a set of what are
> > called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).  These are
> the generic TLDs (EDU,
> > COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
> letter country codes from
> > ISO-3166.  It is extremely unlikely that any other
> TLDs will be created."
> >
> > I am of the opinion that Jon Postel would not have
> wished to expand the
> > namespace; I believe he had the foresight to
> imagine the current
> > registry/registrar free-for-all which has resulted
> in the semantic
> > irrelevance of a what should have been developed
> as a coherent
> > directory-like structure.
> >
> > I would have to say that Vint's questioning of the
> wisdom of adding new
> > TLDs to the namespace is probably where most
> thinking people ought to be
> > in their reflections on the current state of the
> dns.  Furthermore, it is
> > not an accident that Tim-Berners Lee has spoken
> out against the further
> > expansion of the namespace; and I hardly think
> anyone would want to accuse
> > him of holding back or stifling innovation.
> >
> > Be Well All,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would imagine that in Jon Postel's day the
> issue
> > >> wasn't only the competencies and ethics of a
> TLD
> > >> proponent, but also the issue of
> "circumstance", as
> > >> in, "under what circumstances should a new TLD
> be
> > >> launched?"  Clearly Jon's iTLD file lists
> requests by
> > >> competent parties that weren't acted upon.
> > >
> > > Jon was not a god.  He was just a very nice
> person who happened to do a
> > > particular thing.  We should not ossify the
> internet around his personal
> > > procedures or predilictions.
> > >
> > > Jon was a pragmatist - he did what needed to be
> done and didn't dig into
> > > motives.  In his time we were getting along with
> a few TLDs - they had
> not
> > > been overly monitized by a frenzied dot-com
> boom, nor had the kind of
> > > entrenched money-pump mentality that underlies
> into ICANN come to pass -
> > > so the issue of when and why did not rise to the
> top of the stack.
> > >
> > > But knowing Jon as I did (which was not close
> but not distant either) I
> > > believe that Jon would have answered a direct
> TLD request with a couple
> of
> > > questions:
> > >
> > >    - Does the requestor know what he/she/it is
> doing (i.e. does the
> > >      requestor know how to follow internet
> protocols and the
> > >      end-to-end principle?)
> > >
> > >    - Has the requestor really done some
> introspective thinking about
> > >      whether they really need a TLD as opposed
> to doing their thing
> > >      at a lower level in the hierarchy?  (Notice
> that the focus of the
> > >      question only asks whether thought had been
> exercised; the
> 
=== message truncated ===



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