| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Board favors more open sTLD process
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 17 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
now i realize i am just a jilted applicant, but sense ICANN doesnt get accountability anywhere else.. here my brief read on "THE PLAN"
1) Did anyone actually see this June 24th.??
2) isnt the follwing the weakest comment you have ever seen...especially in a "fair, open and transparent manner" organization.
Any other questions regarding this RFP following the application period should be addressed in writing to general-counsel@icann.org (oral inquiries will not be accepted). Directing questions, or attempting to engage in conversations with members of the ICANN staff, Board of Directors, outside legal counsel, or consultants between the time this RFP is issued and until the Board makes its final decision could be grounds for summary rejection of the application (see Open and Transparent Communications below).
3) heres the new bottom up process.
The Board, in consultation with ICANN President Paul Twomey..........
4) they didnt publish schedule B as to who can reapply. We were put in limbo by the outside staff.
Page Howe
kids Domains INc
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
I think I've got the new board of directors sorted out. Please correct any mistakes, or fill in the blanks. Some of the blanks are supposed to be blank, I believe, as they've not been seated or nominated.
ICANN Board of Directors
* President & C.E.O.
Dr. Paul Twomey
* Address Supporting Organization
(1) Lyman Chapin
(2) Mouhamet Diop
* Generic Names Supporting Organization
(1) Michael Palage
(2) Alejandro Pisanty
* Country-Code Names Supporting Organization
Newly formed supporting organization; therefore, no nominees or directors
* Nominating Committee
(1) Masanobu Katoh
(2) Veni Markovski
(3) Hualin Qian
(4) Ivan Moura Campos
(5) Vinton Cerf
(6) Tricia Drakes
(7) Thomas Niles
(8) Njeri Rionge
* Root Server System Advisory Committee
Unknown
* Security and Stability Advisory Committee
(1) Steve Crocker
* Government Advisory Committee
(1) Mohd Sharil Tarmizi
* At-Large Advisory Committee
Unknown
* Technical Liaison Group
(1) Francisco A. Jesus Silva
(2) John Klensin
Also, ICANN's website didn't say Vinton Cerf was Chairman and Alejandro Pisanty was Vice Chairman. Has there been a change, or will there be? Anyone have any ideas? Karl, can you fill in my blanks or correct my mistakes?
Lastly, what happened to the PSO?
Best,
Doug
Doug Mehus
http://dmehus.posterous.com/ [posterous.com]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
I don't think anyone noticed but the board did not react unfavorably, and Vint Cerf indicated that he favored, moving towards a system in which TLD applicants are evaluated more on their ability and willingness to adhere to internet technical standards than on their business plans.
To my mind, we are seeing what could well be a sea-change in the way that TLDs are handled. From my conversations with the incoming board members I perceive an open mind on these issues.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
Please try to get your own facts straight before coming out with the anonymous lectures, it's not like you have to interview Joe Sims or anything, the information is on the ICANN.org website, as it happens one link off the link you provided after a fashion (if you can't do basic HTML no-one is going to take you seriously anyway). 18 unsuccessful applicants last time? Not even close [icann.org]. That's the problem, the only people more moronic than ICANN are some of their critics. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
Thanks for the correction. I was at the meeting and did not have time to go back and count the applications; more importantly, the article attempted to estimate how the field would be narrowed, i.e. who would actually reapply. That very rough estimate (this is reporting on location, mind you) was based on discussions at the Montreal meeting. Could be wrong, of course, but "4 or 5" meant "4 or 5 applicants KNOWN TO BE LIVE."
It is quite possible that live applicants would have expanded, even if the Board hadn't indicated that it will change that restriction. Under the RFP sponsored applicants unwilling to revive their bids could assign or sell the right to someone else.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 2 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
Board favors more open sTLD process