In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale. I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact. Is there any strong opposition to this? Alan
I agree Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de junio de 2018 06:07 p.m. Para: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release Importancia: Alta In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale. I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact. Is there any strong opposition to this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
Sounds good to me On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:46 am Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote:
I agree
Regards Alberto
-----Mensaje original----- De: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: miércoles, 20 de junio de 2018 06:07 p.m. Para: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release Importancia: Alta
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Agreed Holly On 21 Jun 2018, at 7:07 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I too agree Bastiaan -- Envoyé de mon iPhone
On 21 Jun 2018, at 04:24, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Agreed
Holly
On 21 Jun 2018, at 7:07 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Please note: this communication is confidential, legally privileged and subject to a disclaimer https://ams-ix.net/about/email-disclaimer
Dear Alan, thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs. I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price. Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
3G or telecom deregulation in our part of the world had the requirement to establish universal service funds USF to serve the public interest and extend services to the last mile by adding a small percentage of telco revenues to the USF pool. In this case, one may need to be very clear in distinguishing what the public interest is, the longstanding debate to actually what it is, non-profit is a confusing term in itself and private sector entities have tons of non-profits working under them..... On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs.
I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price.
Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Public Policy Analyst Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Dear Alan, given that a follow-up statement with "corrections" was posted to the public comment forum after I informed you of the matter below and given the fact that my comment was not taken into account, I hereby ask you again to have this statement amended as per below. Should this Statement be ratified as such, it will leave me with no option than to write directly to the Public Comment Forum, to issue a rebuttal that I disassociate myself from this Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD (in my personal capacity) On 24/06/2018 00:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Alan,
thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs.
I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price.
Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
FWIW, I find Olivier's comment perfectly reasonable and supportable; auctions to establish who gets the string with no reserve price. We cannot know or guess every fo...., well business plan out there. Let's disavow prior restraint here. The positional principle ought to be for maximizing the take by fair and transparent means and use those windfall proceeds to help advance the agenda to which ICANN and the community are severally committed. Let's opt to help our friends and neighbours who would wish to spend big money on a string do so efficiently and help some others too. Because as we say in my neck of the woods when Eskimos have too much money they buy [a] [re]fridge[ator]. -Carlton On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, 12:40 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
given that a follow-up statement with "corrections" was posted to the public comment forum after I informed you of the matter below and given the fact that my comment was not taken into account, I hereby ask you again to have this statement amended as per below.
Should this Statement be ratified as such, it will leave me with no option than to write directly to the Public Comment Forum, to issue a rebuttal that I disassociate myself from this Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD (in my personal capacity)
On 24/06/2018 00:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Alan,
thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs.
I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price.
Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale.
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
Is there any strong opposition to this?
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing listALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Happy to support Olivier's request. Olivier, I'm sure you and Jonathn can, between you, come up with a form of words thaat works Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlton Samuels" To:"Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" Cc:"Jonathan Zuck" , "ALAC Working List" , "Alan Greenberg" Sent:Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:29:26 -0500 Subject:Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release FWIW, I find Olivier's comment perfectly reasonable and supportable; auctions to establish who gets the string with no reserve price. We cannot know or guess every fo...., well business plan out there. Let's disavow prior restraint here. The positional principle ought to be for maximizing the take by fair and transparent means and use those windfall proceeds to help advance the agenda to which ICANN and the community are severally committed. Let's opt to help our friends and neighbours who would wish to spend big money on a string do so efficiently and help some others too. Because as we say in my neck of the woods when Eskimos have too much money they buy [a] [re]fridge[ator]. -Carlton On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, 12:40 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, wrote: Dear Alan, given that a follow-up statement with "corrections" was posted to the public comment forum after I informed you of the matter below and given the fact that my comment was not taken into account, I hereby ask you again to have this statement amended as per below. Should this Statement be ratified as such, it will leave me with no option than to write directly to the Public Comment Forum, to issue a rebuttal that I disassociate myself from this Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD (in my personal capacity) On 24/06/2018 00:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Alan, thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs. I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price. Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote: In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale. I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact. Is there any strong opposition to this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [2] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [3] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [4] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) [5] -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [6] _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [7] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [8] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [9] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) [10] _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [11] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [12] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [13] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) [14] Links: ------ [1] mailto:ocl@gih.com [2] mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [3] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [4] http://www.atlarge.icann.org [5] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A... [6] http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [7] mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [8] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [9] http://www.atlarge.icann.org [10] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) [11] mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [12] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [13] http://www.atlarge.icann.org [14] https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Frankly, we can just remove the reference to OCL. Will that do? Evin, can that be done? Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://<br/>www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of h.raiche@internode.on.net <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2018 7:17:27 AM To: Carlton Samuels; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Jonathan Zuck; ALAC Working List; Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release Happy to support Olivier's request. Olivier, I'm sure you and Jonathn can, between you, come up with a form of words thaat works Holly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> To: "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> Cc: "Jonathan Zuck" <jzuck@actonline.org>, "ALAC Working List" <ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 06:29:26 -0500 Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release FWIW, I find Olivier's comment perfectly reasonable and supportable; auctions to establish who gets the string with no reserve price. We cannot know or guess every fo...., well business plan out there. Let's disavow prior restraint here. The positional principle ought to be for maximizing the take by fair and transparent means and use those windfall proceeds to help advance the agenda to which ICANN and the community are severally committed. Let's opt to help our friends and neighbours who would wish to spend big money on a string do so efficiently and help some others too. Because as we say in my neck of the woods when Eskimos have too much money they buy [a] [re]fridge[ator]. -Carlton On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, 12:40 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Alan, given that a follow-up statement with "corrections" was posted to the public comment forum after I informed you of the matter below and given the fact that my comment was not taken into account, I hereby ask you again to have this statement amended as per below. Should this Statement be ratified as such, it will leave me with no option than to write directly to the Public Comment Forum, to issue a rebuttal that I disassociate myself from this Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD (in my personal capacity) On 24/06/2018 00:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Alan, thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs. I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price. Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote: In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale. I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact. Is there any strong opposition to this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I Also find quite fair Olivier’s proposal. Each string has its own ideas to develop and we saw lots of problems in the way auction was set for 2012. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 08:29 To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@actonline.org>, 'ALAC List' <ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release FWIW, I find Olivier's comment perfectly reasonable and supportable; auctions to establish who gets the string with no reserve price. We cannot know or guess every fo...., well business plan out there. Let's disavow prior restraint here. The positional principle ought to be for maximizing the take by fair and transparent means and use those windfall proceeds to help advance the agenda to which ICANN and the community are severally committed. Let's opt to help our friends and neighbours who would wish to spend big money on a string do so efficiently and help some others too. Because as we say in my neck of the woods when Eskimos have too much money they buy [a] [re]fridge[ator]. -Carlton On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, 12:40 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Alan, given that a follow-up statement with "corrections" was posted to the public comment forum after I informed you of the matter below and given the fact that my comment was not taken into account, I hereby ask you again to have this statement amended as per below. Should this Statement be ratified as such, it will leave me with no option than to write directly to the Public Comment Forum, to issue a rebuttal that I disassociate myself from this Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD (in my personal capacity) On 24/06/2018 00:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Alan, thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more complete than version 1. I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was limited to legacy gTLDs. I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape, my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to set a minimum (or reserve) price. Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey in the ALAC's Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote: In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for speculation/resale. I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact. Is there any strong opposition to this? Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Carlton Samuels -
Fouad Bajwa -
h.raiche＠internode.on.net -
Holly Raiche
-
Jonathan Zuck -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Vanda Scartezini