Re: [ga] Re: On new TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karl and all former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,

Exactly and precisely Karl.  But of course I amongst many others have
stated the same or similar many times before.  Still there have  been
all sorts of arguments as why NOT to add new TLD's or various
"Types" for reasons that make little of no good free market sense.

Than of course there are those like our supposed allies in France
and elsewhere that are not believers in the free market system
and/or free trade.  Hence leaving nearly any argument to be an
impediment to the addition of new TLD's .  So what to do?
Well what to do is either ICANN bites the bullet or takes it
in the hart and if the latter, than some plurality of the internet
community suffers accordingly.  Therefore each and any willing
participating internet community member has a decision they
can make and than inform ICANN of that decision.  Once
  this is done, ICANN than has a mandate to act accordingly.

But rather what we are seeing, reading, and experiencing is that
ICANN and it's BoD and Staff believes it knows best what is
good for the internet community and has decided to make those
decisions for said stakeholders/users, but still takes public
"Comment" as input and seemingly wishes to restrict that
input to whatever degree it can.  As such, they have plausible
deniability which ever decision the ICANN BoD decides to
make.  Catch-22.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that Jon Postel would not have wished to expand the
> > namespace
>
> OK, so we differ over what Postel's opinion might be.
>
> But you did not answer my primary point - that the insertion of subjective
> opinion, anyone's opinion, to block the legal behavior of someone else
> contrary to the end-to-end principle and is a potentially illegal
> restraint of trade.
>
> It is my opinion that the selling of Hummers is obscene.  Should my
> opinion thus require that general motors stop building and selling them?
>
> Hence my formulation:
>
> The First Law of the Internet
>
> Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is
> privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental.
>
>   * The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish
>     to prevent the private use.
>
>     o Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of
>       public detriment.
>
>   * The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify
>     the suppression of the private activity.
>
> Are you, or ICANN, prepared to demonstrate with clear and convincing
> evidence that the effective freeze on new TLDs is necessary to protect the
> public from specific and identifiable harms?
>
> If not, then you, and ICANN, should get out of the way and let innovation
> happen.
>
>          --karl--

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