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,

The simple answer is yes.  The not so simple answer is yes, and without
registration restrictions as to use or origin of registrant.

In other words, new gTLD's should be introduced and without
restrictions as to whom wishes to manage such.  I and our
members have some reservations about sTLD's or "Special
TLD's" as the restrictions in registration agreements become
complicated, subject to change without due process of the
registrants, thus causing those same registrants effected
negitively to the extent of loosing their business's associated
with their Domain name's in those name spaces.

City code TLD's are a good idea IF, the registration contracts
are not restrictive to those that reside in that city or restrict
the use of such a domain name in that city's name space.

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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 ===
>
>
>

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