Re: [ga] Re: The First New.net Name Appraisal at Afternic

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello DannyYounger,

It is time for you to step down.


Wednesday, July 25, 2001, 6:43:54 PM, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Ken Stubbs writes:  "i am also frankly surprised that the GA chair would have 
> been the person to start this thread anyhow !!"

> When the wholly-owned subsidiary of ICANN's second-largest accredited 
> registrar makes a policy decision to begin accepting for auction domains from 
> the largest alternate root, this is a noteworthy event...    

> What we are witnessing is the "consensus" of the market-place, a consensus 
> that is more far-reaching, more representative and responsive to community 
> needs than the "consensus" that ICANN purports to have.  The ISP community 
> has reached a preliminary market-place consensus... they are supporting the 
> New.net initiative -- Earthlink, @Home, prodigy, Juno, Netzero and many 
> others (such as the American Alliance of Service Providers with over 550+ 
> member ISPs) have partnered with this registry.  No wonder that our own ISP 
> constituency has remained silent on this issue... they want to be able to 
> supply that which the market demands, and that which New.net has offered to 
> the public, new TLDs, now.

> The secondary domain market has recognized this "consensus" and is moving to 
> capitalize on the opportunity for further profit... many of ICANN's own new 
> TLDs won't even be going "live" until 2002, and the public has not exactly 
> clamored for the choices being offered -- .shop, .web, .club are choices far 
> superior than that which ICANN has chosen.

> The public has responded to the New.net initiatives because ICANN has not met 
> their needs.  The ccTLDs are withdrawing from the DNSO primarily because 
> their needs have not been met.   Congressmen craft legislation to establish a 
> .kids domain because the needs of their constituents have been ignored. 

> The consensus that I am hearing is not the consensus that ICANN purports to 
> have.  We, in ICANN, bandy about the word "consensus".  We claim that our 
> policies are based on the bottom-up consensus process, and yet a policy paper 
> (ICP-3: A Unique, Authoritative Root for the DNS) was issued without the 
> necessary bottom-up process, without any public comment, without constituency 
> input, and without a vote by the Council... 

> We can continue to bury our head in the sand (like those in the NC that argue 
> that roots are beyond our scope), or we can move forward to responsibly deal 
> with the issues that face us.  Alternate roots have become a part of the 
> landscape... to attack them, or to ignore them, is folly.  

> To the same degree that the White Paper recognized that the earlier IAHC 
> process was insufficiently representative and that important segments of the 
> Internet community remained outside the process, so too are we in ICANN now 
> guilty of becoming an exclusionary cartel.   Letters between attorneys have 
> already been published.  We are potentially on the brink of a very ugly 
> situation.  It is time for Mr. Lynn to withdraw his paper, and time to 
> recognize that if we lay claim to a consensus process, we had better start 
> using it.





> --
> 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




-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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