Re: History & current events (RE: [ga] About GA membership again......)

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Simon Higgs wrote:
>
>I like the analogy, but what "happened yesterday" does not overlap with
 
>pre-history. ICANN has recently started the accreditation of registrars
, 
>and opened competition to NSI at that level. Pre-history, as you call 
it, 
>is the prior TLD application(s) to IANA, via the sanctioned RFC1591 
>process, to create new TLDs in the root, and authorize and delegate 
these 
>new TLDs to new registries (i.e. back-end registries to registrars, 
further 
>opening competition, etc.). This has not been done.


Right.
And, IMHO, it will never be done this way.

Some applications were gathered (BTW, for which Jon pointed out that no 
guarantee for further processing could be granted), and set aside 
waiting for the definition of the process.
By the time IANA lost (supposing it ever had) authority to delegate 
gTLDs, that process was not defined. Now a process may be defined (we 
all hope so), but IANA will not be the delegating authority.

Before getting again into debate about continuity, may I ask whether the
 GA finds *really* reasonable that delegation of gTLDs will be done 
simply with a FIFS process picking from that chronological list, or 
whether other considerations should apply?
An example.
ICANN has defined accreditation mechanisms for Registrars.
It is, IMHO, very likely that we have to define criteria for 
accreditation of Registries, that will include guarantees about 
financial solidity, for instance, notwithstanding possible 
considerations about geographical distribution.
These, IMHO, are going to be considerations that will have much more 
weight than an ordered list at IANA's.

To make a practical example, IODesign will be much better off in being 
able to prove to be serious about running the .web Registry (which I 
believe they do) than in relying (only) on "prior" claim (BTW, I am 
under the impression that IOD was not the first anyhow - so I assume 
that Chris will agree on this point).
Please check that list, and you will find it full of absurde claims made
 without substance, sometimes in bulk because in any case to make such a
 claim did not cost much more than the use of some bandwidth.
To be in that list *may* be considered an element by ICANN when making a
 decision, but I am pretty sure that this will not be the main one, and 
probably not even a required one.

In the meantime, things are progressing.
Somebody may have noticed the GAC recommendations on gTLDs contained in 
their Cairo communique, for instance.

Regards
Roberto
--
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