Re: [ga] New gTLDs consensus process at ICANNwiki

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris, Ted, and all,

  Both of you are right here.  Ted's point is well taken, but does not
likely
have the consideration or "Sanction" of ICANN.  Hence, such group's will

not receive any consideration by ICANN.  Chris's point is also a very
good
one, but as such WG's have been ignored, restricted as to participation
and participantants by fiat of ICANN consideration was limited.  If
however
a new WG was not so restricted as to dialog rules, ect., and open to any

and all willing participantants, it may be real progress can be realized
and
will deserve recognition and serious consideration as to conclusions
reached.

kidsearch wrote:

>    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
>

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