"ALAC supports an expansion of the gTLD namespace that allows both sponsored and unsponsored names. We understand that the current proposed RFP limited to sponsored TLDs, is suggested as a continuation of the "Proof of Concept" testbed. First, therefore, we offer suggestions for making this limited expansion more equitable. We further urge ICANN to move quickly beyond "testing" to more open addition of a full range of new gTLDs in the near future..." http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/msg00067.html
Antony, without commenting on the substance of the ALAC positions then or now, I hardly think it is relevant to quote a 7 1/2 year old INTERIM ALAC position from a time when: - the INTERIM ALAC had only been formed earlier in 2003; - it was composed largely (10 out of 15) of members appointed by the Board; - the NomCom appointed members had been in place for only a few months and some may not even have attended the only intervening ICANN meeting that started 6 days after their appointment. Alan At 30/03/2011 06:40 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
"ALAC supports an expansion of the gTLD namespace that allows both sponsored and unsponsored names. We understand that the current proposed RFP limited to sponsored TLDs, is suggested as a continuation of the "Proof of Concept" testbed. First, therefore, we offer suggestions for making this limited expansion more equitable. We further urge ICANN to move quickly beyond "testing" to more open addition of a full range of new gTLDs in the near future..."
http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/msg00067.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
"ALAC supports an expansion of the gTLD namespace that allows both sponsored and unsponsored names. We understand that the current proposed RFP limited to sponsored TLDs, is suggested as a continuation of the "Proof of Concept" testbed. First, therefore, we offer suggestions for making this limited expansion more equitable. We further urge ICANN to move quickly beyond "testing" to more open addition of a full range of new gTLDs in the near future..."
Well, we've certainly learned a lot in the last eight years, haven't we? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
and the 2004 to date experience has shown that expansion predicated on a registry sponsor model is not workable in the context of the assumption that a domain name = trademark. The IPR issue blocks DNS name expansion. All we are seeing is the same old names in new tld's. Not a helpful situation when naming resources are needed to support billions of new users and devices in an IPv6 scale Internet. Potential for a significant crisis is defined. Christian On 31 Mar 2011, at 00:40, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
"ALAC supports an expansion of the gTLD namespace that allows both sponsored and unsponsored names. We understand that the current proposed RFP limited to sponsored TLDs, is suggested as a continuation of the "Proof of Concept" testbed. First, therefore, we offer suggestions for making this limited expansion more equitable. We further urge ICANN to move quickly beyond "testing" to more open addition of a full range of new gTLDs in the near future..."
http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/msg00067.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:
and the 2004 to date experience has shown that expansion predicated on a registry sponsor model is not workable in the context of the assumption that a domain name = trademark. The IPR issue blocks DNS name expansion. All we are seeing is the same old names in new tld's. Not a helpful situation when naming resources are needed to support billions of new users and devices in an IPv6 scale Internet.
These "naming resources" don't need to be TLDs, do they? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
These "naming resources" don't need to be TLDs, do they?
Heck, no. In fact, I expect we'll see less rather than more use of the DNS in connection with IPv6 because the address space is just too big to give everything a name. This leads to some security issues particularly with e-mail tha people are just starting to appreciate. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Antony Van Couvering -
Christian de Larrinaga -
John R. Levine -
McTim