Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's a matter of committment. Any group of people can get together and talk about political issues as well. There is of course no guarantee that anyone will pay attention to them. There is no reponsibility inferred upon the gov to pay attention to any self-appointed group.

The same applies here. These supporting orgs have no obligation whatsoever to listed to any recommendations made by a self-appointed WG. (See the responses or lack of them on this list alone.)

When the WG is started by ICANN or other groups, they have to at least publicly ACT like they are listening to the recommendations and there is a public record of their response to the recommendations made by a WG they started. If done by someone on their own, there is no reason for them to acknowledge it at all. Well there is reason, but certainly they do not feel obligated to do so.

These supporting orgs and ICANN itself is supposed to be seeking this input. The fact they are not doing so is a violation of the MOU. This is why I am publicly pushing them to start these WGs on topics they are currently considering making decisions about. If they refuse to do so, then lets' have them publicly refuse to do so. This way at least any members of congress who are looking into this can see that ICANN is in no way responding to the needs of Internet users.

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


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ted Ernst 
  To: Jeff Williams 
  Cc: kidsearch ; Jaeyoun Kim ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; icann board address ; ALAC 
  Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki


  Hate to belabor the point, but we don't need any workgroups empowered by anybody.  Those that want to work on a plan are always free to do so.  And of course I'm inclined to think that http://icannwiki.org/Consensus:New_TLDs is a pretty good place to do that. :-)

  peace,
  ted


  On 11/26/06, Jeff Williams < jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    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






  -- 
  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