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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

Re:  "But we will never know until we try."  

The process seems to have worked just fine for those
248 TLDs that have no contracts with ICANN.


--- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny it appears your parroting some language here
> that really needs clarification to make your point
> clear itself.
>   Basis of Contract?
>   Contract-Basis?
> Memorandum of Understanding?
>   Mutual agreement to the terms of RFC 1591
>   and you left out other matters that make a
> contract; course of dealings, prior practice,
> tradition of trade. custom and practice.
>    
>   However you later remarks make it clear what you
> want. A round without the bull. Just hook me up and
> let me run. This may create worse problems. But we
> will never know until we try.
>    
>   e
>    
>   
> Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> 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 
>   
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 


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