RE: [wg-review] Re(2): [cctld-discuss] Comments on review of DNSOby Mr Park

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:36 AM
> 
> Eberhard,
> 
> Hmm. How pessimist you are.
> 
> Let take the new gTLDs example. After five or six years of a long 
> and passionate debates and fights in favor or against the opening 
> of new gTLDs, and challenging the dot COM, the Working Group C got
> a very difficult task. Jonathan Weinberg deserves a gratitude for 
> leading that group and publishing an apparently tiny compromise 
> "there should be new gTLDs, 6 to 10 in a start up". The WG-C document
> was subsequently considered and endorsed by the Names Council 
> and its recommendation forwarded to the ICANN Board. Everybody 
> was exhausted and the work was not terminated: no specifications,
> no selection process defined, no criteria. All the above was left
> to the ICANN Staff, which made the work as good as possible for 
> the first selection of 7 gTLDs in Marina del Rey.

Not strictly true. I was on WG-C and submitted a proposal that detailed each
of those things (I have recirculated that proposal on this forum). Due to
filibustering by D'Crock, Crispin, and the TM lobby, we never got to
specifics (which is what they wanted, they won). Weinberg did as good a god
as could be expected, but D'Crock rat-holed him good.

> There will be other new gTLDs. The terms of reference for a call 
> for proposals could be revisited now by the DNSO using the 
> year 2000 first 
> experience, a set of specifications for running a TLD is needed, 
> as well as selection criteria. 

No one has commented on the ONLY detailed proposal ever made on this.

> All such documents shall be translated 
> to five or six languages and published well in advance, six months 
> prior to the next call for proposals seems appropriate. It could 
> be suggested than an external consultant making a comparative study 
> be from different countries, it will bring more fairness, or 
> perception
> of fairness, into international competition. Such a comparative 
> study shall be translated into several languages, it is a feedback 
> and an important help in understanding how the ICANN process works.

I think that it doesn't matter, the language that it is proposed in. The
feedback will not be acknowleged. EL is right and the general perception
agrees. This is why it is difficult to get feed-back. No one wants to waste
the effort.

> I am quite sure that proceeding this way will add a necessary 
> strength to ICANN, and its international good reputation.

Only if the ICANN demonstratively listens, for once.
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html