Chris and all,
The answer to your final question is simple and I believe you
already know it. It is however that ICANN, the DNSO, the ALAC,
and other constituencies do not like open and above board discussion
in open WG's or sub WG's.
kidsearch 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
> > -----------------------------------
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience 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