Re: [ga] An apology for new TLDs

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

Dr. Dierker is of course correct here.  Indeed, agenda's are the enemy
of
innovation as well as sometimes the friend of inovation and evolution.
What
we all know here if we are honest with ourselves, is that the ICANN
BoD's
and staff's through their musical chair appointments to their positions,
have
similar agenda's of sometimes a personal or inter-related business
origin
as we all saw with .INFO and .BIZ decisions and the non decision of
.WEB.  We have also see that there is a different aganda with respect to

.xxx.  So free market approach is being thwarted by agenda's of
different
origins and types with respect to new TLD's, obviously.  So also is the
free market and free speech being thwarted in regards to timing or the
introduction or ANY new TLD as a result of agenda's.

Therefore Dr. Dierker's point is not missed by me, and I hope no one
else.

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    Danny,
>
>   Let us begin with a notion of Free enterprize. And let us look at it
> with Free speech in mind. As a young advocate back several decades ago
> i learned that prior restraint and self censorship were the worst
> forms of restriction on Free speech. As a professor and international
> trader decades later i learned the same was true for Free enterprize.
> It is not the bounds of a contract or a law or regulation that stymies
> Freedom it is the act of man, both within and without himself.
>   When one says "that cannot be done" or "that cannot said or
> written", then we stifle thought. Mechanical, technical, financial and
> political problems are always there. Did Mandella or King or Ghandi or
> Mohammed or Christ wait until all the Pharisees or Afrikaners or
> Imperialists said OK go ahead and speak your mind? Did Edison wait
> until they had power plants or Columbus wait for a Papal edict that
> the world was flat? No they did not and thank goodness.
>
>   So what rational thought dictates is that we restrain only things
> that are inherintly wrong. Not things that can cause problems. At the
> heart of arguments against new TLDs are one of two thoughts. "Oh my
> God it will crash the systems of the internet!!" or "We really do not
> need new TLDs we have enough". Note that the first are technical folks
> that would stand to gain from "retooling" the mechanics involved,
> either by direct work or by further making themselves important. And
> of course the second are those who gain by restricting and thereby
> capitalizing on shorter supply therefor higher value in remaining
> namespace. But i beg of you to show me one dotcommoner billion
> numbered consumer who does not want more namespace.
>
>   .XXX is silly not to have gone through, but even sillier are the
> rumors and bull people used to explain why it did not go through.
> Again it was for personal agendas. Believe me there was no Whitehouse
> to Christian Right and back to the DoC conspiracy, but that thought
> furthers political agendas of those who prosper from such silliness.
> And this brings us to the next point.
>
>   Politics and money and technical factors all play a role in the
> evolution of any idea. Some will become angry and aggravated that
> evolution does not go from slime to eagle in a day. They also wish
> that it will not be without sacrifice, cost, rancor and delay.
>
>   Let us move forward with new TLDs and debate the important issues
> but not the obvious answer - of course we must not restrict Freedom of
> Speech. And that is all restricting namespace is.
>
>   e
>
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> 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 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 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!)
"Obediance 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