NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:42:34 -0200
Reply-To:
Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From:
Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (68 lines)
Caríssima,

Not at all -- first of all, I never mentioned a time frame, much less a 
long time. Secondly, why a working group would take forever? To the 
contrary, I think a study by people who are following the issue could be 
done in 3-4 months, or even less. Once structural criteria are in place 
(in my opinion, there aren't any consistent criteria right now), let 
hundreds or millions of domains to be created :)

On the other hand, doing policy on a case-by-case basis or on individual 
opinions like "I do not have problems with this particular domain" leads 
to the continuity of this absurd situation in which domains are created 
as a consequence of successful specific business lobbies only, and not 
following a clear conceptual, widely agreed, logic.

gTLDs are no longer (for a long time, by the way) generic US domains, 
they are __global__ domains, this realm belongs to the world, not to a 
few US-dominated lobbies -- we must organize this discussion and create 
conditions for wide global participation in this debate. A working group 
with precise mandate and a clear time frame can stimulate this.

What is the point in NCUC playing into the game of "yes to this domain, 
not to that one", if there are just too many possibilities and criteria 
circling around without any consistency?

This for me is clearly a "back to the drawing board" situation. This 
needs a deep, structural reorientation. I do not see any way to do it 
properly except by a careful study with ample public consultation.

[] fraterno

--c.a.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Carlos:
> Doesn't your proposal reward the BC/IPR by giving them exactly what 
> they really want -- no new domain names for a long time, if ever? 
>  
> Kathy
>
>     Sorry to be "systematic" (in some regions of Brazil, it means
>     "crazy"),
>     but I take advantage of yet another clever manipulation of the
>     issue by
>     the BC/IPR community to insist on NCUC discussing (and hopefully
>     approving for submission to ICANN) my proposal of a temporary
>     freeze on
>     any gTLD move (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent, qualified
>     pluralist working group (far away from Washington) prepares a
>     detailed
>     report with recommendations.
>
>  


-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
[log in to unmask]            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ATOM RSS1 RSS2