Re: [ga] Collisions in Namespace

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

Danny and all remaining assembly members,

babybows.com wrote:

> To:  Philip Sheppard, Names Council Chair
>
> There has been considerable discussion on the GA list regarding collisions
> in namespace.  Arguments have been put forth that the ICANN Board action to
> accept the .biz application constitutes a policy decision which may fragment
> the net irrevocably.  Without commenting on the merits of this claim, it is
> sufficient to note that domain name policy is the purview of the DNSO, and
> that "Constituencies or GA participants may propose that the NC consider
> domain name policies or recommendations."

  Not ONLY should the NC consider this concern, but the GA and all the
constituencies should as well, Danny.  I am sure you wouldn't want any
participant to be excluded...

>
>
> As two principles addressed by the White Paper, stability and competition,
> have been raised in the course of this debate, and whereas the Department of
> Commerce has previously expressed concern regarding any actions which may
> lead to the possibility of consumer "confusion", I now ask that the NC
> consider the ICANN domain name policy with respect to collision with names
> in the alternate root community.

  Good suggestion here.  Lets be sure that all "Interested Parties" as
is required in the White Paper and the MoU are able to participate
unfettered in this potential review. I am quite sure our [INEGroup]
members, over 100k strong would not like to be excluded should any
choose to participate.  It should however again be noted that thus
far, as you know Danny, that many would be participants have been
excluded for participation in the WG-Review, the DNSO GA,
and other Working Groups formed for various specific issues
that the DNSO has dealt with in the past.  Of course this is
well documented in the various archives of the DNSO Mailing
lists, see:  http://www.dnso.org/archives.html  for further detail.

>
>
> As the consequences of such NC consideration may have serious monetary
> repercussions for those directly impacted by any such consensus-based policy
> recommendation, and as such consideration may well come to also impact users
> of the Internet worldwide, I ask that a formal working group be convened to
> allow for the full and unfiltered expression of all views on this topic.

  I support this call.  Lets be sure now that there is an OPEN forum/ML
by which this can be discussed and debated, unlike the WG-Review
process was conducted recently....  See:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html

>
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html