[ga] Re: [ga-roots] Proposed ICANN Policy

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

Dessa and all assembly members,

Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@corliss.net]
> |> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:41 PM
> |> To: Darryl Lynch
> |> Cc: [ga-roots]
> |> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Proposed ICANN Policy
> |>
> |> It is exactly because ICANN has not released large number of
> |> TLDs that the problem exists in the first place.  More cynical observers
> believe that
> |> ICANN is deliberately restricting supply in order to keep prices up.
>
> Agreed and all measures need to be taken to ensure the name space is
> responsive to market demands.  Currently it is not.  That is a policy
> issue.  ICANN does not appear to have a policy at meeting market demand.

  The ICANN BoD and some or most of the members of the NC are
not interested in meeting market forces demand.  Therefore the Market
will have to do it for them.  This is unfortunate, but necessary.  This
sort of thing happens in other market sectors from time to time, and
has for decades if not centuries.

>
>
> |> Having said that, it is already ICANN's stated *policy* to release more
> |> TLDs.  All the GA can do is urge ICANN to move more quickly.
> |> There is no policy change involved.
>
> I disagree, there is the need for a policy change in ensuring ICANN meets
> market demand and is more responsive in meeting the needs expressed by
> users of the system.

  The needs of the users of the system are a huge part of the market. 
Ergo
they are one in the same, pretty much.  Hence the ICANN BoD is
delinquent.
The users have and are continuing to express their needs in competitive
Roots/TLD's.  New.net is just one such significant example.


>
>
> |> It is also unlikely that ICANN will release sufficiently *large
> |> numbers* to make the issue disappear entirely.  There are millions of
> |> possibilities in all sorts of languages.  There is also the UDRP issue
> which
> |> does not apply to alternate TLDs.  They will continue to be operated for
> that
> |> reason only.
>
> I'm not sure of the relationship between the UDRP and the so called
> alternative roots.  Linking the two issues would not be productive in my
> opinion.

  In it's present form I agree.  The UDRP is not yet ready for prime
time
and is one of several reasons why competitive roots/TLD's are
excelerating.

>  Both name spaces will have similar problems in this regard.  How
> they resolve them may be different and there may be lessons for ICANN to
> learn there.  However, I feel it is better to concentrate on the issues
> seperately.  I also doubt ICANN will move fast enough for the issue to be
> resolved in the short term with out some concentrated effort to push them.

  I think the effort will be more along the lines of push/pull.

>
>
> |> I'm sure you agree that ICANN should adopt compliance with the relevant
> |> standards as a general principle.  And to encourage co-operation and
> |> compliance within the industry is hardly a radical notion.
>
> Yes, I do agree, however, co-operation and compliance are two different
> things in this issue.  The so called alternative roots are not in
> compliance.

  Compliance?  With what or whom?   ICANN doesn't seem to be in
compliance
with market demand.

>  I do not consider them legitimate, although others obviously
> do.  BTW, I use the term legitimate here in an Internet RFC compliance
> context and not in a legal sense.

  Most are in compliance with RFC's to date. However RFC are not
standards only requests for comment.  The comments that are being
determined and otherwise expressed occasionally from competitive
roots/TLD's is being expressed by their existence and operation
(Running code).

>
>
> |> Please tell me what part of that wording you find difficult to accept.
>
> The wording appears to be fine.  I am only concerned with the concept of
> submission behind the co-operation statement.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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