harald and all, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > A TLD operated under the decision authority of the Assembly of First > Nations or the National Congress of American Indians is certainly possible, > IMHO. This is a good idea. However I am very sure that the Department of interior and the tribes, would want some decision making process control or influence on this suggestion. > > > The (relatively) calm .edu, .mil and .gov TLDs are existence proof that > it's possible to operate a chartered TLD when the decision authority is > clearly defined. Agreed. But it seems that "Educom", of Mike Roberts fame, is attempting to "Capture" the .EDU TLD. Decisions of this nature should be decided by the Stakeholders at the bottom-up level. I would suggest that a referendum to and from the DNSO GA would be most appropriate in this instance. > > > The "only" questions that ICANN has to decide when evaluating such a > suggestion are: > > - Is the name appropriate? > > - Is the suggested authority the appropriate authority? > There are plenty of examples of it being hard to say who speaks for a > people, the Kurdish people being only one of the more violent ones. (From > Eric's note, it seems that in this case we have only 2 candidates, and they > are friends at the moment....) Authority should be determined by the partitioners of and new TLD chartered or not. Again I would suggest that to be in keeping with the White Paper, such a decision and establishment of authority would need to come from and with the approval of the GA or the ICANN membership as a whole. > > > - When should this gTLD be installed (now, later or never)? > Given that ICANN seems committed to a number of gTLDs less than a thousand, > there has to be a ranking of candidates, and only the first few get > chartered now; I don't envy anyone the task of making the cut. Why does there need to be a ranking Harald? > > > Kent gave a lot more good points to consider in his note; one he didn't > mention was the question of appropriate law. I assume the law of the place > of registration of the decision-making body would probably be appropriate. Appropriate law in the US, which is after all where the ICANN is incorporated, would be several. One that come to mind would be the Fair Competition Act. > > > So yes, if you are willing to appoint someone with the power to decide, I > too think a chartered TLD is possible. APPOINTED? Hummmm? This seems both inappropriate and in violation the the White Paper as well as the MoU. > > > My personal opinion (this morning, before coffee) is that the initial cut > should include (at least?) 2 domains, one of which is "open" and one of > which is "chartered, with powerful decision-making body". Then, after a > year, we can see which ones are seen as useful and which ones are seen as > having IP problems. (My opinion might change after coffee.....) Well my feelings in this regard are of course well known. A movement in your suggested direction and process, would meet with a definite good background with a violation of the Fair Competition Act. I would recommend against this approach. > > > (I've deleted wg-c from the CC list - I'm not a member.....feel free to > forward if you want to....) > > Harald > > -- > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
