Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted, you know I'm in for anything that has a direction and some momentum.

I missed some emails while upgrading my computer, (I was finally forced to give up windows98. lol) so where and when and how you are doing this would help a lot.

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

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Ernst 
  To: kidsearch 
  Cc: Jaeyoun Kim ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 5:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki


  Yes, the members of this list ARE a great resource!  And why do we need to wait for the Board or ALAC or GNSO to empower us to do some good work?  That what the consensus poll is all about, getting to work!  At Danny's suggestion, we've changed the framing to read "New TLDs" instead of "New gTLDs."  There's no reason that scope can't be limited or split up at a later stage.  Right now, we're looking to create some momentum behind the very general question so we can get to work on defining concerns and interests, documenting the background, and then move on to possible solution pieces and ultimate complete solutions! 

  Who else is in?

  peace,
  ted


  On 11/24/06, kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
    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
    > -----------------------------------





  -- 
  Humanize the Earth!   http://tedernst.com
  Open more space!  http://www.openspaceworld.org
  Need help doing something? http://chicagoconservationcorps.org/blog/
  Housing Co-ops in Chicago: http://www.chicagocoop.net
  skype: TedErnst
  jabber: tedernst@xxxxxxxxx