| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN's Next Steps
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 7 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
What he said:
Establishing minimum criteria for new TLDs. DOC has instructed ICANN to "continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs)," and to "develop criteria upon which to base its selection of gTLD operators." This is a subject on which ERC has not focused. ERC should recognize that it is essential to relieve the pressure created by the perception that ICANN has no plans to open up the name space to new competitors. Establishment of minimum technical and functional criteria (and publication of a schedule for acting on new applications) will make clear that ICANN does not seek to prevent competition or to create artificial scarcity on which it can base subjective rulemaking powers. One of ICANN's (and ERC's) top priorities should be to call for the "public articulation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions" for new TLDs required by DOC, and to make each of these elements as objective and light-handed as possible.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Susan states:
'The GAC has suggested that ICANN restate its policy development mission to include policies "reasonably and appropriately related to its technical functions."'
This is not quite right. The language proposed by GAC was:
"Coordinates policy-development as necessary to perform these technical functions."
See http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/statement-on-reform-26jun02.htm
It was the ERC who suggested that the language proposed by GAC may be "unwise" and "not sufficiently flexible" and instead proposed:
"Coordinates policy-development reasonably and appropriately related to its technical functions"
See http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/first-implementation-report-01aug02.htm#1
To date the GAC has not commented on the language proposed by the ERC.
Richard Hill
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
So what keeps ICANN from thanking all for their concerned advice -- and then writing a speech for the At Large on one hand and citing it on the other -- and saying "well, pish tosh, these things we propose to do are all appropriately related to our technical functions. If you don't believe us, just look at this policy mission revision suggestion put together by a working group within the At Large?
Consensus, ICANN style. Also consensus, East German style, but I suppose we did not learn from history, so we will be taking that class again.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
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
|
