Re: Who really benefits from 60-day period?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chris and all,

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> > a) the Internet top level domain space is a public resource and is subject
> > to the public trust.
> 
> This has yet to be determined. While this sounds wonderful, it still leaves the
> question of who the guardian of this public trust is, and how it will be
> administered. At this point, anyone has as much of a claim to that guardianship
> as the IAHC does.

  I would tend to agree with you here.  It would appear, however that
the 
membership at IAHC do not.  This is troubling in that they, as yet do
not
have any clear claim to guardianship via any legal means or consensus to
date.  It appears that some members already think that IAHC does have
such authority however.  That much is clear.
> 
> > c) when it does so, according to those decisions, .web may or may not be
> > chosen as one of these gTLDs in the initial round;
> 
> This has yet to be determined. What initial round? What initial gTLDs? What
> choice? The *draft* has this, but we've been told that this is up to change. Your
> message indicates that it is not.

  Well the initial gTLDs have not been stated in the Draft to my
knowledge.
so, again I must agree with you Chris.  It seems that some of the
membership
again, believe that the IAHC already has this authority, which seems 
troubling, in that their is no clear consensus.
> 
> > d) when it does so, according to those decisions, specific entities may or
> > may not be selected as registrars having shared access to those gTLDs depending
> > upon the selection criteria and candidates;
> 
> This has yet to be determined. What selection? What sharing? What criteria? It
> would appear that the IAHC has already made these decisions and informed noone.

  I sure does according to the language of this statment.
> 
> > Therefore, in consideration of the above and with respect to the public
> > DNS, I would humbly submit that contacting companies about registrations in
> > non-existant gTLDs by non-existant registrars appears somewhat premature.
> 
> I would differ, based, as I've said before, on the fact that we have permission
> from IANA to do what we're doing.
> 
> Regardless, however, this is YET ANOTHER post from an IAHC member taking the 19
> December draft as ESTABLISHED POLICY! Folks, it is most clear at this point that
> the IAHC has no intention, and never had intention of making ANY changes to the
> first draft based on public comment.

  Well, let's wait and see.  I am hopefull.  But this does seem to be
strong
evidance to that possibility.
> 
> These indications from Mr. Shaw convince me even further that the IAHC process
> has nothing at all to do with the actual comments given by participants, and that
> the iahc-discuss list has been a waste of time. Now, more than ever, I envision
> very serious consequences on 31 January.

  I hope not.  But we shall see.  Even if so, their is other recourses
that
could be taken to correct this if it becomes a problem or a precieved
problem.
> 
> This is a regulatory action taken by a committee with no clear authority. Consensus
> could create such authority, but at this point, we're far from that. I am deeply
> distressed.

  I am still hopefull.  But you could be correct.  Let us all wait and
see.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com