Re: [ga] New TLD Paradigm
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx, icann board address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] New TLD Paradigm
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:10:32 -0700
Danny, Michael and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
First off a good part of Michaels remarks below are offered as
a chum. Ok, I'll take a small bite.
My only problem with Michaels remarks is that I cannot realistically
define what a "Abusive registration" is. I believe such missives are
used as an excuse to arbitrarily limit tld's in the marketplace and
no legitimate purpose but do serve to encroach on freedom of
expression and impose a form of censorship, which is an affront
to many potential registrants with another area of considered
restraint of trade given some GNSO's constituencies desires for
sponsored only TLDs.
Secondly, and more important, is that there is currently
NO New TLD Paradigm, as a Paradigm is strictly defined,
( see websters dic. ). Hence all of Michaels remarks are
a false argument and non sequiter in nature. Therefore
any further discussion from or regarding his remarks below
are circular and not resolvable from such of similar perspective(s).
Danny Younger wrote:
> In advance of the upcoming Amsterdam session on new
> gTLDs, Michael Palage has submitted some interesting
> comments for consideration:
> 39. The current gTLD paradigm of Unsponsored
> Restrictive (.BIZ, .NAME, and .PRO); Unsponsored
> Unrestrictive (.COM, .NET, .ORG and .INFO); Sponsored
> (2000 - .MUSEUM, .COOP and .AERO), Sponsored (2003 -
> .TRAVEL, .JOBS, MOBI, and .CAT) and legacy gTLDs
> (.INT, .EDU, .GOV and .MIL), does not scale in
> connection with the continued expansion of the root
> 40. As noted by several stakeholders, a number of the
> recently selected sTLDs should have been more properly
> characterized as gTLD given the sheer magnitude and
> ambiguity of the proposed ?communities.?
> 41. Further reinforcing the non-scalability of the
> current paradigm is the position of certain
> constituencies within the GNSO that only sponsored
> TLDs should be added to the root.
> 42. Should ICANN adopt a sTLD only approach toward the
> continued expanse of the name space, it will only lead
> to more applicants attempting to fit a square peg into
> a round hole, thus undermining the principles of
> predictability which is so important to this process.
> Moreover, any attempts by ICANN to adopt sTLDs only
> may unfairly benefit the existing unsponsored registry
> 43. Therefore, a new paradigm must be proposed for the
> gTLD space which allows for meaningful expansion and
> competition, while at the same time taking into
> account the strong preference for the concept of
> sponsored/chartered TLDs as expressed by a portion of
> the community.
> 44. The proposed new paradigm is one based upon the
> level of involvement that the registry operator
> exercises in connection with reviewing the
> registrant?s qualifications. For the purposes of this
> discussion, a registry would fall into one of either
> two categories: Registrant Verified ? where the
> registry operator verifies the qualifications of the
> registrant prior to the domain name being added to the
> zone (a.k.a. ?going live?) and Registrant Unverified ?
> where the registry operator undertakes no prescreening
> of qualifications involving the registrant.
> 45. For purposes of this discussion. The existing
> gTLDs would be classified as Registrant Verified based
> upon the screening protocols by the registry operator
> in connection with the registrants: .MUSEUM, .COOP,
> .AERO, .TRAVEL, .JOBS, and .CAT, whereas the following
> existing gTLDs would be classified as Registrant
> Unverified based upon the lack screening protocols by
> the registry operator prior to registration: .COM,
> .NET, .ORG, .INFO, .BIZ, .NAME, .PRO, and .MOBI.
> 46. It is also useful to note that all legacy gTLDs
> (.GOV, .EDU, .MIL, .INT and .ARPA) would all qualify
> as Registrant Verified.
> 47. Although many in the community have been strong
> advocates of sponsored TLDs because they believed they
> represented a minimal risk for abusive registrations,
> the sheer magnitude of some of the recently approved
> sponsored communities with potential registrants
> numbering in the billions serious calls into question
> their initial assumption.
> 48. Under this new proposed paradigm, there would be
> no limit to the number of Registrant Verified TLDs
> that ICANN would process. However, in connection with
> Registrant Unverified TLDs, ICANN would agree advance
> to allocate a set number of these TLDs over a given
> period of time, i.e. ten (10) Registrant Unverified
> TLDs over a five (5) year period of time. Given the
> scarcity of these Registrant Unverified TLDs, ICANN
> could use an auction or lottery mechanism .
> 49. Given the potential for public policy concerns by
> the GAC, all potential applicants/bidders would have
> to pay a fee to allow ICANN to pre-screen the
> application prior to active bidding.
> The complete document may reviewed from this page:
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827