Re: [atlarge-discuss] Comments on Stuart Lynn's "A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bruce and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

Bruce Young wrote:

> Here's my take on this:
>
> >I. A Proposal for the Board to Extend the Proof of Concept in Parallel with
> >Evaluation of the new gTLDs:
>
> The issues I see here:
>
>         - Which gTLDs, and who has a voice in their selection?

  That is outlined in the committee notes if you read them Bruce...
What is a more appropriate question that this organization might ask
could be:  What are the criterion for the "Selection" of any new TLD's,
and whom has vote on which ones are chosen or determined?

>
>
>         - What membership rules are going to be tied to these domains?

  Membership???  In a TLD???  I think or hope you mean: what
will be the charter requirements for which TLD's for registrants
of domain Names in that TLD Name space?

>
>
>         - When do Techies get theirs?!  :) (Sorry! Couldn't resist!)
>
> >II. A Plan for Implementing the Key Recommendations of the NTEPPTF Report
> >regarding the Evaluation of New gTLDs:
>
> The issues I see here:
>
>         - How many new gTLDs?  There is really no legitimate technical reason
> anyone has brought forward (other than old fashion supply & demand to keep
> registration fees artificially high!) why we can't have hundreds or
> thousands of new TLDs.  Based on three-letter alpha codes alone, the
> permutations lead to over 17,000 possible TLDs.  Add in Unicode
> foreign-language alphabets . . . you get the idea!  We need many more of
> these than I expect Mr. Lynn is envisioning.  We need to get him to expand
> his vision!

  I don't know about thousands of new TLD's, but at least hundreds would
be reasonably marketable.

  In order to really have any chance of getting Stuart Lynn to expand his
very limited vision (Currently announced is 3 new TLD's), we will need
allot of $$ to promote adequately whatever our position as to how we
believe the approach to new TLD's should be approached.  Remember
also there already is allot of history available on this subject area/issue...

>
>
>         - What rules are going to be tied to these domains, if any, that are not
> already applicable to existing ones?

  We should not be asking this question but already have a answer to it
to put forward.  By asking instead of stating, we leave the battle field
on this issue to ICANN to essentially decide.  Not a good policy approach
or political tactic either.  And again we need serious $$ and allies to get this
considered seriously.   ISP's would be a good place to start for allies for
obvious reasons...

>
>
>         - Will IP issues predominate, or should we start saying "enough is enough
> already!" and say new gTLDs are strictly first come, first served?

RFC1591 already outlines that first come first serve "Was" the rule
as to selection of new TLD's.  And again allot of history on this
part is also available and well documented as well...  Yet as I sent
to the DNSO GA list several months ago, APNIC was given the nod
to work on changing RFC1591 in this particular area so as to make the
language is certain sections of this RFC to be changed in such a way as
to eliminate the first come first serve doctrine it once incorporated.
Have you been following that ongoing discussion Bruce?  Are you on their
WG ML for RFC1591?

> I
> obviously vote for the latter!  Corporations have already spent enough
> useless dollars registering "redirected domains".

Redirected Domains?  Please elaborate?  Many .COM .ORG and
.NET Domains have been redirected for years.  That has nothing to do
with TLD registries...

>
>
>         - What rules are going to be put in place to administer them, ensure fair
> access to everyone, and to *punish* registrars who violate the rules?!  I
> envision an independant watchdog panel to detect violations and pass them to
> ICANN.

  And than expect what?

>
>
> >III. A Recommendation that the Board seek DNSO (or its successor) advice on
> how to evolve the top level generic namespace:
>
> No way!  We need the involvement of the entire Internet community on this
> one, not just the Internet Industry-dominated DNSO.

  Agreed...

>  The future shape of the
> top level generic namespace is more a political issue than a technical one,
> and we need far greater discourse on this subject by groups and entities
> representing diverse interests than the subjet would ever receive in a
> closed DNSO forum!  If nothing else, forcing this to open dialog to happen,
> with or without ICANN's blessing, needs to be the chief cause of the At
> Large, and, I think, the primary focus of our Amsterdam meeting!

  Good point and idea here...

>
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon USA
> bruce@barelyadequate.info
> http://www.barelyadequate.info
> --------------------------------------------
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de