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

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

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 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.

  Indeed Jon did directly state this.  None the less, he took the
applications
and documented than as well.  On a legal basis, this implies intent.

>
> 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.

  The IANA at this time was under a indication of doubt as to whether
they
could delegate anything.  They were to be consulted for advisory
purposes.
Had you done you research properly as has been time and time again,
Roberto,

you would already know this, and possibly even taken notes.  It is
obvious
even to a casual observer that you have not, however.  This has been
pointed out several times by multiple assembly members and participants
on the DNSO GA mailing list.

>
>
> 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?

  Of course other consideration should apply.  As to what considerations
and whom determines those considerations is the stakeholder community
as a whole, as the White Paper clearly indicates.

>
> An example.
> ICANN has defined accreditation mechanisms for Registrars.

  And did so improperly in violation of the White Paper, without the
benefit of a AT-Large membership, and also in violation of the MoU.
Hence, this decision is ambiguous at best.

>
> 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.

  They are indeed considerations, but may or may not have priority
legally
under US law to previous claim that can be documented which IOD's
can be, and has been.

>
>
> 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).

  Yes IOD was the first claim of filer in the original process.  That
much
is well documented and has been hashed and rehashed on many occasions
on various mailing lists prior to you, Roberto even being on the scene.

>
> 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.

  Your definition or absurd is one that many of us are not familiar
with,
as well as many legal minds are not familiar with as well in you
indirect
reference here, Roberto.  This however is not unusual, as we all have
seen
this sort of FUD from you and Harald on many occasions before.

>
> 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.

  If it is not a main one, then ICANN will have made IOD's and others
legal case for them.  I am sure that Jones & Day is well aware of this
as well.

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

  The Cairo communiqué as well as the GAC was and remains a farce,
as also has been well reported already, Roberto.  Nice attempt at
justification, but this comment fall in the realm of FUD.

>
>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members 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:  972-447-1894
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