Re: [ga] New gTLD Selection Criteria: A proposal

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

Re:  "The problem with simply following RFC 1591... is
that 1591
is more about business models than technical
requirements and/or
best practices."  

You are conveying misinformation.  RFC 1591 is not
about business models.  Have another look at the
document:  http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt



--- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other
> interested
> stakeholders/users,
> 
> The problem with simply following RFC 1591,
> especially sense it's
> modification not long ago which was hotly debated
> and discussed
> here and on the IETF forum's dealing with RFC's, is
> that 1591
> is more about business models than technical
> requirements and/or
> best practices.  Hence ICANN's back door into
> manipulating
> the introduction of TLD's and requiring contractual
> obligations with
> potential Registry operators for those proposed to
> be introduced
> TLD's.
> 
> Danny Younger wrote:
> 
> > Thus far we have had two major rounds of gTLD
> > selections, the year 2000 round for unsponsored
> gTLDs
> > that would operate on the basis of a contract with
> > ICANN, and the round for sponsored gTLDs that
> would
> > operate on a contract-basis with ICANN.
> >
> > My proposal:  the next round should be for gTLDs
> that
> > will not operate on the basis of a contract with
> > ICANN, but rather on the basis of RFC 1591.  It
> will
> > be at the discretion of the sponsoring
> organization to
> > decide whether it is warranted to enter into an
> MOU
> > with ICANN.
> >
> > The rationale:  this system has been proven to be
> > workable.  ICANN has sufficient revenues and does
> not
> > require additional funding streams which is all
> that a
> > contract really provides -- ICANN's laissez-faire
> > attitude toward the rest of the contract details,
> > exemplified by the ongoing failure to address
> > compliance issues, makes it clear that the balance
> of
> > contract language is only there to adorn a funding
> > vehicle.
> >
> > Without a contract regime to which the sponsoring
> > organizations must adhere there is less processing
> > time involved for ICANN which translates into
> lower
> > costs and thus lower application fees -- that
> would
> > serve to open up possibilities for the Civil
> Society
> > segment, among others, that have looked askance at
> the
> > fee level involved in the earlier rounds.
> >
> > ICANN should, in theory, be able to function as a
> > coordinator.  It does not have to be a contract
> > manager, and thus far the mere existence of
> contracts
> > has led to significant litigation costs as well as
> to
> > a massive drain on human resources just to settle
> > contractual issues.
> >


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