Re: [ga] Suggestion of allocating time @GA on new TLDs

[Kendall Dawson <kendall@obs-us.com>]

Hi Harald,

At 07:48 PM 11/12/00 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Hi folks,
>there's come in a suggestion for a change of item on the GA meeting.
>
>We currently have a 5-minute item "status of new TLDs".
>We don't have any working groups to report from, so we could redisposition
>some time from this.
>
>Suggestion: Use this as a structured Q&A period for the new gTLD applications,
>so that the GA members can get some comparatively well-formed input on the 
>new proposals.
>
>Suggested format:
>
>- Get a representative from each of the 16 proposals on the shortlist
>- Get about 5 questions to raise - not about the proposals, but about the
>   way the proposers think that the DNS expansion should happen, and how their
>   particular proposal will affect the DNS and the Internet

My suggestion for a question to ask of the 16 representatives:

"Between 1992 and 1999, Network Solutions held exclusive control of the 
domain registry. They have registered nearly 12 million domain names alone. 
One of ICANN's goals is to "enable competition and open entry in 
Internet-related markets". If your application is chosen and you are 
allowed to create a new TLD -- what is your plan to enable competition with 
Network Solutions?

This may display some of my bias towards NSI... but, I want to know how do 
they plan to enable competition? The last thing that the Internet or any of 
us needs is another monopoly controlling the DNS.


>- Ask each proposer to answer these question in a limited time (3 minutes?)
>- Allow some time for discussion
>
>Does this strike people as a reasonable use of GA time?


I think this is wise use of GA time. It will allow the proposers to openly 
state their response "on-the-record" so that the general public can hold 
them accountable for answers and their future decisions.


Regards,

Kendall




--
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