<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?
Thank you for your comments,
1. When should a RFC be disregarded? What is the criteria?
2. If circumstances warrant differing from an RFC should one first challenge
the existing RFC?
3. When fully constituted should the AL have a GA?
4. It would appear that every RFC interferes with sovereign nation status.
Should they?
5. Is IETF elected? - No, so they should make no policy?
6. Is the digital divide between engineers and pollywogs,
or between have and have nots?
Peace,
Eric
Jeff Williams wrote:
> Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> I will be more than happy to respond.
> (See specific comments/observations to Eric's response in line below)
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Thank you Jeff,
> >
> > I believe this may be the perfect time for you to explain to the rest of
> > us why you believe it is important to stick with old RFC's.
>
> It is not my belief that I was referring to if you read my post correctly
> and with some attention to detail. It was and still remains the ICANN
> BOD's and Staff's public statement and policy to do so.
>
> My personal and the majority or our members opinion that
> the IETF RFC's in many instances are out of date of obsolete.
> However RFC 1591 is not one of those.
>
> >
> >
> > It would seem that the Net and/or the WWW changes quite quickly but that
> > RFC's move quite slowly.
>
> Indeed this is quite true. But in most instances the Net/WWW doesn't
> change so quickly or dramatically as to make most of the RFC's obsolete
> in the same amount of time.
>
> >
> >
> > The only forum that seems to keep up with constant advances seems to be
> > the
> > GA and that appears to be because it does not create RFC's.
>
> Not really true. There are a number of forums, some of which are
> IETF forums that keep up very nicely. As I have yet to see you
> on any of those forums, perhaps you are not aware.
>
> >
> >
> > It also currently does not seem to censor, which allows it to handle
> > problems arising
> > tomorrow - today.
>
> Selective censorship has been a problem with the DNSO GA as
> you know and as has been repeatedly documented on that forum
> for some 2+ years now. So I am surprised at your statement here...
>
> >
> >
> > i.e. ccTLDs of Arabic design - we will discuss and have great input prior
> > to any other forum yet we will put forth no RFC.
>
> As you perhaps do not know, there is a RFC for foreign language
> ccTLD's and Domain Names. So perhaps a review of the IETF
> web site on this subject would be a good exercise for you. But
> I am sure you are referring to the very recent post from
> "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <alnajjar@any-dns.com>
> see: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03919.html
> to which I believe you responded to at:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03921.html
> However a more detailed and in depth review of the DNSO GA
> archives will reveal very little in this area of discussion or area
> of issue/interest. However I would be happy to be corrected
> on this point if you can provide some URL's references from
> the DNSO GA archives to the contrary...
>
> >
> >
> > Please respond.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Eric
> >
> > Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > > Daryl and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> > >
> > > VEry good brief Rundown here Daryl. And one that has been presented
> > > in par or in full by several other stakeholders on more than one
> > > occasion including yours truly.
> > >
> > > One important point that perhaps you forgot or had not considered
> > > is that the ICANN BoD and Staff had and IMHO still has is to
> > > abide by RFC1591 which the ICANN BoD as far as RFC's
> > > has touted to be very supportive of. Yet in this instance (RFC 1591)
> > > it decided in the MdR Meeting of Nov 2000 drastically deviated
> > > from in preference to a lottery selection process for new TLD's.
> > > We [INEGroup] along with many other groups warned that such
> > > a method would be a huge mistake with long term ramifications
> > > BEFORE the ICANN BoD and staff decided without stakeholder
> > > consensus or vote to dictate. Now the proverbial turkey has come
> > > home to roost.
> > > It is for some of the reasons in your rundown and my above comments
> > > that it is paramount that Stakeholders/users must be in the majority
> > > on the ICANN BoD with 9 seats. However given the ALSC
> > > "Final Report" and denial of the polls and comments submitted on
> > > this forum is is unlikely that such will occur. If not, ICANN will
> > > never be ligitimate in the mid to long term...
> > >
> > > Daryl Tempesta wrote:
> > >
> > > > > ICANN should stipulate
> > > > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > > > > reserve the rest,
> > > > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> > > >
> > > > I have talked to Lawyers which represent Verisign AKA
> > > > Network Solutions. I was told that buisness clients
> > > > complain all the time about being advised to buy up
> > > > EVERY domain in every TLD for every trademark they
> > > > own.
> > > >
> > > > Bruces suggestion in a very good one in my oppinion
> > > > because in some form it is inevitable.
> > > >
> > > > Here is why; I think that ICANN will either do it
> > > > volunterally or the US congress will step in - perhaps
> > > > as the result of a high profile Supreme Court case.
> > > > Consider these senarios.
> > > >
> > > > a) Some time in the near future, many more TLDs are
> > > > introduced, pressure from the atLarge and millions of
> > > > individual domain owners will be successfull in
> > > > lobbying ICANN for TM free TLDS
> > > >
> > > > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Market
> > > > saturation
> > > >
> > > > b) Some time in the near future, many more TLDs are
> > > > introduced, Laws from congress passed due to the
> > > > pressure of millions of individual domain owners will
> > > > then be successfull.
> > > >
> > > > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Legal
> > > > intervention including new laws.
> > > >
> > > > Conclusion: it is inevitable that there will be both
> > > > TM and non TM requirements in TLDs.
> > > >
> > > > ICANN build the framework now,
> > > > while you have the choice how.
> > > >
> > > > Daryl Tempesta
> > > > hotdot.com
> > > >
> > > > --- Bruce Young <byoung651@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jeff wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >It is poignantly and disgustingly clear that
> > > > > >the ICANN staff either cannot or will not do
> > > > > adequate oversight
> > > > > >of it's rubber stamped "Registrars and Registries"
> > > > > given the
> > > > > >events of the past year or so that have been
> > > > > reported here
> > > > > >and on other forums.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ya think?! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > These guys are making this SO much harder tha it
> > > > > needs to be. Part of the
> > > > > problem are these ugly "sunset" periods. Why? If
> > > > > the point of new TLDs is
> > > > > new addresses for peoplke that don't havethem, why
> > > > > are we letting the same
> > > > > old people buy up addresses before everyone else?
> > > > > ICANN should stipulate
> > > > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > > > > reserve the rest,
> > > > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce Young
> > > > > Portland, Oregon
> > > > > byoung651@attbi.com
> > > > > http://home.attbi.com/~byoung651/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> > > > http://greetings.yahoo.com
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > --
> > > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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 121k members/stakeholdes 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: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|