RE: [ga-roots] Proposed ICANN Policy

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----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.

|> 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.

|> 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.  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'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.  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.

|> 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