ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] "Ongoing Programs" Mechanism

  • To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] "Ongoing Programs" Mechanism
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:08:57 -0800 (PST)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=rX2nUh2D25xTtk33zRZ84fpAK6y+WA2ORhTWS/J0a+MfhI2fhpzyO6fbn3EXKnEdn036Jc5ITc+5WBfOkIZKG4LSEwj5cr4GjXNatfVRStM9NyPEvvox53mG3aEEJpb64DNmqtYr/iRANWQeBnj+TcKf2WyODDM323XHrlV/cCg= ;
  • In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512141437550.5215@lear.cavebear.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Karl raises a very good point:  "Why the ^%!~ should
there be "negotiations"?"

Why is there the presumption that new gTLDs will
necessarily require a contract?  The DNS currently has
264 TLDs.  ICANN has contracts only with 18 of those
sponsoring organizations.  Over 93% of all TLD
sponsors have no contract with ICANN.  

One should also note that ICANN has no contract with
the sponsors of .edu, .mil, .int, or .gov.

Why then should a new gTLD sponsor be required to sign
a contract?  Where is the community consensus that
this is a necessity?  

What if members of Civil Society decided to launch a
.SUCKS domain and told ICANN that they would not be
prepared to accept a contract?  Would .SUCKS ever be
entered into the root? Would a failure to enter an
approved domain into the root owing to a lack of a
negotiated contract constitute restraint of trade?



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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>