Re: [ga] DOT DANNY -- It's the problem?

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re:  I would like to understand what you want to
obtain.

Hi Jefsey,  

I'm sure that you recall the year 2000 TLD round where
ICANN rejected ".iii" because some Board members were
concerned that the name was too difficult to
pronounce, even though the pronunciation factor had
not been listed as a criterion.  

You probably also recall the comment of a U.S.
Congressman who stated that ICANN's TLD selection
process was "more shrouded in mystery than events at
the Vatican".

What I want to obtain in the first instance is
consensus on very clear selection criteria so that we
can have a predictable process reasonably free from
subjectivity and arbitrary decision-making.  

By consensus, I do not mean the collective views of
only the IETF community who probably drafted RFC 920
without any input from non-commercial groups,
trademark interests, ISPs, governments, or small
businessmen.  Consensus today needs to accomodate a
broader range of interests.

Right now my focus is on a search for agreement on
selection criteria.  I am also concerned by the need
for definitive allocation methods for instances when
perhaps two or three or four different groups all want
to manage the same TLD (an example might be a .tel).

If we don't decide what the criteria or allocation
methods will be, then assuredly ICANN Staff will make
that decision for us.

Merry Christmas,
Danny


--- "M. Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Dear Danny,
> "we" who are they?
> 
> The agreement "we" (FCC licensee for the name space)
> reached is 
> documented in RFC 920 
> (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0920.txt?number=920) and
> organises the 
> DNS for 32 years. Multiorganisation TLDs are OK if
> there is at least 
> a prospective number of 500 registrants. Period.
> 
> The rest is accepted consensus violation. IETF has
> deprecated RFC 920 
> for technical aspects also addressed in RFC 1591.
> This does not 
> change that we stroke a deal. That deal makes ICANN
> legitimate 
> (www.icann.org/icp/icp-3.htm). Your perpetual debate
> only violates 
> it. As much as ICANN over-bureaucracy.
> 
> I would like to understand what you want to obtain.
> Merry Xmas.
> jfc
> 
> 
> At 23:36 23/12/2005, Danny Younger wrote:
> >I started thinking about the upcoming TLD
> application
> >for .berlin
> >
> >There are those that will argue that instead of
> >granting the sponsoring organization for this
> >initiative a top level domain for Berlin, we should
> >instead be insisting that Berlin rightly belongs on
> >another level (as in berlin.de or berlin.eu or
> >berlin.de.eu).  If we accept this argument, then we
> >are accepting a taxonomic approach which calls for
> >geographic labels to abide by whatever hierarchy is
> >set by a country code or regional code manager.
> >
> >The flip side of the argument might be to state
> that
> >there is nothing inherently wrong with granting
> >municipalities a top level domain.  You can have
> >.berlin, .nyc, .saigon, .moscow and thousands of
> other
> >cities occupying space at the top level without
> >occasioning any harm.
> >
> >The final decision that we make will set the
> pattern
> >for the future.  On what principles shall we base
> our
> >selection criteria?  We need a forward-going
> policy.
> >What will it be?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________
> >Yahoo! DSL ­ Something to write home about.
> >Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> >dsl.yahoo.com
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/