Re: [ga] New TLDs PDP -- Should new TLDs be Introduced?

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'll repeat my earlier statement Danny. There is a real need for a
legitimate .NPO


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; "Jeff Williams"
<jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] New TLDs PDP -- Should new TLDs be Introduced?


> 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 ===
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com