Ted and all,
All of this is a good idea, but again has been done before
and ICANN
simply ignored any consensus outside their own
divices/constituencies, ect.,
and have often ignored the consensus reached in some of
their own
sanctioned WG's. Hence you may be setting yourself and
others
up for more of the same along with allot of frustration and
disappointment.
Ted Ernst wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that anyone ignores the politics,
but instead am
> suggesting that if we come together not to simply
produce a good
> recommendation document, but to form a broad-based
consensus (the 3rd
> stage as we've laid it out requires 160 people
participating across
> multiple consituencies and regions and 90% of them to
say YES to the
> final document - this is a high bar) that will be VERY
hard to ignore.
>
> peace,
> ted
>
> On 11/27/06, kidsearch <kidsearch bellsouth.net> 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.arti
clecontentprovider.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ted Ernst
> > To: Jeff Williams
> > Cc: kidsearch ; Jaeyoun Kim ; gagnso.icann.org ; 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://icannw
iki.org/Consensus:New_TLDs is a pretty good
> > place to do that. 
> >
> > peace,
> > ted
> >
> > On 11/26/06, Jeff Williams < jwkckid1ix.netcom.com> 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.arti
clecontentprovider.com
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Jaeyoun Kim" <
jaeyounkimgmail.com>
> > > > To: <gagnso.icann.org>
> > > > 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 <
dannyyoungeryahoo.com> 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: jaeyounkimgmail.com
/ 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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Humanize the Earth! http://tedernst.com
> > Open more space! http://www.openspacewor
ld.org
> > Need help doing something?
> > http://chic
agoconservationcorps.org/blog/
> > Housing Co-ops in Chicago: http://www.chicagocoop.net
> > skype: TedErnst
> > jabber: tedernstgmail.com
>
> --
> Humanize the Earth! http://tedernst.com
> Open more space! http://www.openspacewor
ld.org
> Need help doing something? http://chic
agoconservationcorps.org/blog/
> Housing Co-ops in Chicago: http://www.chicagocoop.net
> skype: TedErnst
> jabber: tedernstgmail.com
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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827
|