Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs

[NameCritic <chris1@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Exactly right danny. There have been people banging on his door for a long
time now for the creation of several gtlds. He and the ICANN BoD have just
not been answering the damned door. They know this is true, making Stuart
Lynn and outright liar. Even in his own past statements he has commented
that although people want hundreds of new gtlds it would threaten the
stability of the internet. translated means it would threaten the stability
of the internet the corporations who run ICANN's puppet strings want to
have. It will not threaten the stability of the internet to add new gtlds.
It would threaten corporate control of the internet. They weren't ready for
the way the internet caught hold with the public. They don't want to see a
repeat of them being caught with their pants down so they want the process
slow so it can be analyzed by their attorneys and accountants to find out
how best to profit from each one introduced and how best to continue their
control.

It doesn't just "fuel the belief that the gTLD selection process remains
perversely tainted and is designed to protect entrenched interests at the
expense of all others." It proves it beyond the shadow of any doubt. The
corporations have their head puppet, stuart lynn and they have all the jr
puppets on the board saying whatever they have to say to keep the public not
only uninformed but disinformed. There is absolutely no bottom up process in
ICANN's current structure nor is any planned for their future. They tell the
DoC whatever they have to just as they do the public. They know governments
are slow and that by the time all their options are used with the DoC it
will be too late for anyone to stop corporate control of the internet. At
this point it has already been captured. Those corporations don't care about
the future of ICANN, it is just a tool to get them into a position where no
one can touch them.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <gtld-plan-comments@icann.org>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; <sirenj@iu.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:46 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs


Stuart Lynn's proposed action plan suffers from undue reliance upon
anecdotal
evidence that has tainted his appraisal of the situation.  Comments such as
"In any event, there appears to be little demand right now for new
unsponsored TLDs  – at least, no one is banging at my door", are indicative
of a failure to recognize that which has become readily apparent to the
Department of Commerce and others -- namely, that continued concerns
regarding undefined processes, procedures and standards for ensuring
predictability and transparency in the gTLD selection process have had a
deleterious effect... when the Community is of the belief that TLDs will
only
be parceled out in bits and pieces in a rigged game to favored ICANN
insiders
(for example to Business Constituency members such as Ron Andruff and
Patrick
Murphy of Tralliance Corporation and IATA respectively), there is little
incentive for anyone else to bang on Stuart's door.  For ICANN to be
successful it must act to garner the full support and confidence of the
global Internet community.  This will not happen in a climate devoid of
trust
and in which it appears that predictability only means that select insiders
will get the nod.

Stuart Lynn has argued that "It is hard to find anyone who would argue that
tens or perhaps even hundreds of new small- to medium-sized gTLDs could not
be safely added (as opposed to thousands or tens of thousands – numbers
which
have raised concerns among some in the technical community), particularly if
there were careful monitoring of overall DNS performance as the new gTLDs
were introduced."  If ICANN seeks to comply with Department of Commerce
directives to restore community confidence it should begin by vastly opening
up the gTLD selection process to allow for far more TLDs than the scant
three
that have been recommended.  Limiting the selection to a mere few will only
fuel the belief that the gTLD selection process remains perversely tainted
and is designed to protect entrenched interests at the expense of all
others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de