[ga] an interesting question from the GAC position
The GAC has published comments on the NC position. GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution 26 October 2001 http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oct01.htm This rises a very intersting question: <quote> NC: 1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem that is not inherent to dot info. GAC: The GAC acknowledges that the problem is not inherent to dot info, however, the GAC made the recommendation to the ICANN Board because of the 'special nature of .info' and in response to significant concerns raised with the GAC prior to the Montevideo meeting. It has not suggested that the reservation be applied to any other gTLD. NC: 2. That there is not a full understanding of the implications for suppliers and users of retrospective action of the kind GAC seeks. GAC: The GAC discussed their proposal with Afilias staff during the Montevideo meeting. The reservation as recommended by the GAC, does not hinder Afilias in the administration of their registration process of names in .info and as such, there are no retrospective implications for suppliers and users. It should also be remembered that the GAC first flagged concerns about the use of geographical and geopolitical names as an issue in November 2000. In particular, the GAC specifically recommended that the issues under consideration in the WIPO 2 report and the possible impact of ongoing policy discussions be raised with registrants </quote> the current gTLDs are proof of concept. The TLDs are generic. Now we learn that the in November 2000 the GAC had risen the issue and that GAC consider .info special. The GAC meetings where held BEFORE the TLD show. Carl Auerback - however an elected Director - was refused to access the GAC meeting room. The @large Directors had been made seated after the TLD show, because Directors sharing into the vote had to have followed the file from the beining. Also, we hear that Afilias have had discussion with the GAC what seems to be the proper way to address the problem. What is surprising is that they made a motion over it. This should have been first asked by Afilias to Staff, from Staff to DNSO, from DNSO to meet with GAC. This seems therefore more like the GAC claiming an agreement discussed in Nov; 2000. Now, during the TLD Show Affilias got .info while it was quite agreed it would get .web, because of the action of only a few Direectors not specially in favor of inclusive roots, that everyone understood as to protect the rights of IOD. Questions: 1. what is special about .info supposed to be only a second rank interst to Affilias 2. would the GAC demand be the same for .web - they seem to say no 3. which was the DN really wanted by Affilias? We may remember that: - VeriSign stock jumped up 1.4 billion (said Joanna in Montevideo) after .info was granted to Affilias. Would have it been the same for .web? - Jon Postel was wanting to preserve .info for the press and information industy. GAC obvsiouly understand it that way. - The .info DN values is more expensive that .com. Why as the proof of concept is for a second gTLD comparable to .com. - At the end of the Stockholm meeting Vint Cerf protested against the inclusive roots and called them TLD cybersquatters saying they were taking all the good words. ICANN could have done that for a long, for a lower retail price. - Stuart Lynn's attitude to New.net today is an attitude against competition. All this seems to show that ICANN considers their business as auctioning TLDs and starts beeing good at it. This is something that the DNSO should debate upon before it is enforced as a strategy. It also gives a totally different flavor to the disputes concerning the "single authoritative root", the supposed greed of the inclusive roots and the patriotism of the DNS defense by the Jon Postel Army. Jefsey |