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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

First of all Danny you quoted me out of context, which in and of itself
is misleading intentionally.  If you cannot or will not quote me
accurately
than I would appreciate it if you would not quote me at all.  Such
tactics
are intentionally hurtful and inconsistent with reality.

My full quote is as follows:

Subject:
             Re: [ga] New gTLD Selection Criteria: A proposal
        Date:
             Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:41:28 -0800
       From:
             Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Organization:
             INEGroup Spokesman
         To:
             Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
         CC:
             ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  References:
             1

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.

=======  End of copied post ==============

Therefor my meaning as Danny has taken out of context, which
occasionally he does, is misleading.  The meaning is that the use
of RFC 1591 which IS a technical Request for Comments [Not
a IETF standard] and is therefore subject to change for any reason,
is a RFC used to set forth a set of recommendations that dictates to
one degree or another, a business model.

But of course as Danny is obviously VERY interested in using
RFC 1591 "The" criterion for TLD creation/determination, it should
be easily recognized that  in quoting what I actual stated, and have
again provided, out of context, would tend to lend him support for
his desire.  Such self interest, shared or not, depicted in such
a manner is very questionable as to be ethically arrived at. So
yes everyone, PLEASE do read carefully RFC 1591...

Danny Younger wrote:

> 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.
> > >
>
>

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