[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] New TLDs - plan for more

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

Jefsey and all stakeholders of other interested parties and members,

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> Dear Adam,
> AmerICANN is an US Gov agency.

  Incorrect Jefsey.  ICANN is a contracted private corporation to the
USG.  Most of the BoD members are from other counties as well.
Hence such a contention is misleading and therefore not appropriate
as you state it, Jefsey.

  Now that cleared up properly, indeed ICANN seems to be US
centric to be sure.  This indeed is both puzzling and also not
appropriate either.

> I would not be suprised that the new sTLD
> would be ".edu" equivalent, ie a way for the USA to build an international
> pre-marketshare on the leading markets where they feel Europe or others
> might take a lead (we see that at the WSIS preparation). This would explain
> Stuart's weak presentation. They could be telemedecine, net security
> management, testing oriented. The 10.000 reference would then appear as a
> justification rather than as a target.
> jfc
>
> At 08:16 31/10/02, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> >Chun, Harold, Erick:
> >
> >Yesterday, Stuart Lynn began a discussion about the introduction of new
> >TLDs. He will issue a report early next week (Monday?) describing his
> >recommendations and the names council will begin considering the issue.
> >
> >Aware that the detailed report isn't yet available, and we should wait to
> >read it before getting too excited, one surprise in Stuart's presentation
> >was his suggestion as to the number and type of TLDs, namely 3 and
> >sponsored. I'm concerned that our natural reaction may be to focus on the
> >number type rather than rationale for the suggestion. So, if the report
> >does not adequately describe why 3 and sponsored, then I think a request
> >for such information from Stuart/staff should be the first thing the names
> >council does. Worth noting that we have not seen any report of the
> >experiences of the current sponsored TLD operators as part of the original
> >proof of concept.
> >
> >Again, what I'm asking is, if the report does not clearly explain the
> >rationale for the suggestion of 3 sponsored TLDs as an extension of the
> >current proof of concept, then our names council representatives should
> >ask the names council to ask Stuart/staff for such a rationale. And that
> >it be provided very quickly.
> >
> >And the reason I'm asking now, rather than waiting to read the report is
> >that Stuart's presentation yesterday was a little confused (example, he
> >suggested the IETF might like to comment on whether 3 TLDs could
> >destabilize the net, then in discussion told us that 10,000 new TLDs would
> >be just fine -- odd, and also not in line with the output of the NTEPPTF),
> >and I'll be travelling next week so may not have chance to mention this
> >again! But I think it's important and hope you will consider it.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Adam
> >
> >--
> >_______________________________________________
> >Discuss mailing list
> >Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> >http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/02

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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