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,

First, I am the spokesman for our organization.  We are NOT comprised
or engineers exclusively as your remarks state.  We NEVER have been
exclusively engineers.  In fact only about 25k of our members are
engineers.

Second, I am not negative in any way regarding "Discussing" anything on
this now long defunct GA list forum regarding ANY topic, subject, or
issue of interest to it's subscribers.  I NEVER have been.  Nor are
any of our members to my knowledge.  I DO however point out that
this GA list forum is not official to ICANN and hasn't been sense the
GNSO was created.  As such the value of any discussion, debate or
consideration of any issue regarding the DNS is limited as such.  That
simple.

Hugh Dierker 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
> > > 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Personals
>  Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
>  Lots of someones, actually. Try Yahoo! Personals
>

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.  INNER. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827