Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

But, do you and danny think we can discuss gTLDs, ccTLDs, and sTLDs all at 
the same time with all the same policies and discussions going on for each. 
Or do you see each of these being topics to discuss separately as not to be 
confusing?

Some people are more concerned about gTLDs, others, ccTLDs, and still others 
only sTLDs. (These are not the ONLY possibilities, just limiting it to 3 to 
ask my questions here)

Shouldn't we have some type of format to create working groups for 
discussions relating to each and even sub-WGs on specific elements of each? 
Shouldn't the ALAC and the GNSO be requesting this to be done and shouldn't 
they be requesting this type of input.

A lot of board members and others complain this list is always saying they 
are doing a bad job, however there are people on this list that could be 
great contributors to the whole process if they would stop and make use of 
this FREE resource.

If the people on this list all offered to help me improve my business and 
offered to do it for free, I would believe GOD has blessed me immensley and 
would utilize the resource to it's fullest potential.

Question is, why hasn't ICANN, the DNSO, the ALAC, and others done so?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jaeyoun Kim" <jaeyounkim@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki


> With the same reason of Danny, I also object to framing the issue with
> the term "gTLDs".
>
> Regards,
> Jaeyoun Kim
>
> On 11/22/06, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hello Ted,
> >
> > I object to framing the issue with the term "gTLDs" as
> > I see no reason to limit the discussion to this
> > particular subset of new Top-Level Domains.
> >
> > ICANN also needs non-gTLD policy development
> > activities relating to the introduction of Top-Level
> > Domains with IDN Labels -- for example (new
> > IDN-ccTLDs).
> >
> > By way of illustration, the managers of the Gulf
> > Cooperation Council (GCC) ccTLDs (i.e., ae, bh, kw,
> > om, qa, sa) agreed in 2004 to initiate a pilot arabic
> > domain name testbed to be managed under the auspices
> > of the Arab League.
> >
> > I see no reason why the fruits of their work-product
> > should come to be regarded as a generic TLD (and
> > discussed as if part of the gTLD family of domains)
> > when the policies for this namespace should be under
> > the purview of the relevant ccTLD managers rather than
> > the GNSO constituencies.  I don't buy into the
> > argument that anything that is not a ccTLD is
> > necessarily a gTLD, and I don't accept a gTLD-centric
> > approach to the introduction of new TLDs.
> >
> > Hope this helps...
> >
> > Danny
>
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Jaeyoun Kim (Peter)
> Internet Network Specialist (DNS & SRS Management), KRNIC, NIDA
> Email: jaeyounkim@xxxxxxxxx / Skype: kimjaeyoun
> -----------------------------------