June 2012 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

China is going to divide the DNS
by Lutz Donnerhacke July 1, 2012

July 1, 2012

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns Each ISP - large enough to obtain a TLD from IANA for this purpose - should be allowed to create it's own DNS hierachy. This Chinese proposal is justified by the fact that the (U.S.) centrally managed name space represents a risk for the stable operation of the Internet. Following this draft different name spaces are spanned, each of them operated autonomously. Which domain names are allowed, added, or removed; how a domain name is resolved, is soley in the hand of the operators. Using the typical definition, that "the Internet is the transitive closure of all systems communicating bidirectional via Internet Protocol, which contains the DNS root servers", the Internet is splitted by this proposal. There is no reason to believe the rumours, that this proposal is a direct consequence of the ICANN desaster with new gTLDs. On the other hand, DNSSEC root keys at the end user systems define which root have to be used in the first place. This can be used to establish and protect the new name spaces.

10 9

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 29, 2012

June 29, 2012

Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 29 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 91.19% | 80093 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 33.33% | 1 | 8.81% | 7738 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 87831 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] IRTP C
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

The following message was just sent to the ALAC list. At 25/06/2012 11:21 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I was asked to review the Initial Report of the Inter-Registrar >Transfer Policy Part C PDP WG, and recommend whether the ALAC should >comment on it, and if so, to draft a comment. > >The call for comments can be found at >http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e… >and the Interim Report at English version of the report can be found >at >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf >(other languages at first link). > >The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is primarily focused on >the transfer of a registered domain name from one registrar to >another. However, at the time of Registrar Transfer, there is often >also a change of who the registrant is, yet the IRTP is silent on >any aspect of that. Since transfers of this sort are often >associated with domain hijacking, it should certainly be of concern >to At-Large and ALAC. > >The PDP is also looking at a number of other aspects of IRTP >including how Registrars are identified (currently some registries >use proprietary identifications). > >I strongly recommend that the ALAC comment on this report and my >draft comment follows. The initial comment period closes on July 5th. > >Alan > >===================================================== > >The ALAC supports the general direction that the IRTP C PDP WG is >heading. Specifically, the ALAC strongly supports all measures the >will reduce the possibility of domain hijacking while still >providing legitimate registrants the ability to change registrars. > >The ALAC similarly supports all efforts to formally define the >process by which the registrant of record can be changed, with >implicit safeguards to inhibit hijacking. The ALAC does not have >strong views as to whether this needs to be a separate consensus >policy of not, but the overall results and benefits to registrants >should not be diminished by this decision. > >The ALAC supports the requirement to have all gTLDs use the IANA >Registrar IDs (in addition to any proprietary ones if desired). > >Lastly, the report could benefit from a clearer overview describing >the change of registrar and registrant processes.

1 0

Briefing Document: Second-Level Protections in New gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg June 24, 2012

June 24, 2012

During its 12 April meeting http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12…, the Board passed a motion that included: >Resolved (2012.04.10.NG2), while the New gTLD >Program Committee is not directing any changes >to the Applicant Guidebook to address defensive >gTLD applications at this time, the New gTLD >Program Committee directs staff to provide a >briefing paper on the topic of defensive >registrations at the second level and requests >the GNSO to consider whether additional work on >defensive registrations at the second level should be undertaken; The briefing paper has now been released and is attached. The GNSO has not yet addressed this. I note that this initiative overlaps very significantly with the current GNSO Drafting Team focusing on special protections for International Red Cross and Olympics, and the Possible PDP on protections for Inter-governmental Organizations (See draft Issue Paper - http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/prelim-protection-io-names-04ju…) There is the possibility for up to three parallel efforts utilizing significant volunteer and staff resources and at worst could go in three different directions. Alan >Dear Stephane: >With the closing of the application period for, >and the pending delegation of new gTLDs, the >ICANN community is encouraged to continue to >consider the perceived need for defensive >registrations at the second level, and whether >additional protections for established legal >rights at the second level should be developed and implemented. >In its 12 April 2012 resolution regarding >defensive applications (top-level protections) , >the New gTLD Committee ofthe Board acknowledged >that the sense of the public discussion on this >issue through the public comment forum and the >public workshop at the Costa Rica Meeting >indicated that trademark protections should >continue to be discussed and developed for the >registration of second-level domain names. As >required by the Boards resolution, ICANN staff >members have drafted a briefing paper on this topic. >The paper suggests that the GNSO Council >consider utilizing one of its available >processes such as requesting an Issue Report or >conducting a policy discussion to address the >issue whether additional work on defensive >registrations at the second level should be undertaken. >We welcome comments on this paper. Please send >me any comment or questions you might have. >Best regards >Kurt Pritz >ICANN > cc: GAC Heather Dryden > ALAC - Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > >

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten June 22, 2012

June 22, 2012

Total of 29 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jun 22 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 17.24% | 5 | 16.84% | 41610 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 13.79% | 4 | 17.30% | 42748 | avri at acm.org 13.79% | 4 | 13.94% | 34441 | evan at telly.org 10.34% | 3 | 7.36% | 18180 | johnl at iecc.com 6.90% | 2 | 5.94% | 14668 | pranesh at cis-india.org 3.45% | 1 | 4.74% | 11714 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 3.45% | 1 | 4.44% | 10976 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 3.45% | 1 | 4.22% | 10433 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 3.45% | 1 | 4.08% | 10090 | william.drake at uzh.ch 3.45% | 1 | 3.87% | 9571 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 3.45% | 1 | 3.42% | 8439 | joly at punkcast.com 3.45% | 1 | 3.20% | 7905 | avc at avc.vc 3.45% | 1 | 2.81% | 6944 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.79% | 6882 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.45% | 1 | 2.57% | 6356 | lutz at iks-jena.de 3.45% | 1 | 2.46% | 6070 | michele at blacknight.ie --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 29 |100.00% | 247027 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics
by Avri Doria June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons. avri Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> wrote: >The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on >perspective: > >- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly >pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood >enough >to take advantage of the opportunity; > >- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world >players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant >support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its >actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, >enables >those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide >sensibilities. > >- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public >interest >had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was >asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public >interest >community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So >naturally, it never stood a chance. > >- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of >speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet >infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive >that >ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or >development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for >applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW >... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are >unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of >internet content and services. > >The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's >mandate. >The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. >The >third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. >And >the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed. > >Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. >On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >wrote: > >> The three support applications are particularly disappointing in >> light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants. >> >> Alan >> >> At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >Hi, >> > >> >Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and >> >people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even >> >while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 >> >applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And >> >while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from >> >ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African >total. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GTLD-WG mailing list >> GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg >> >> Working Group direct URL: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs >>

7 7

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics
by Avri Doria June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

Hi, Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total. By any definition, while we have been able to get a thousand flowers to bloom, with the help of the agribusiness applicants, we GAC not manged to do any real outreach to developing regions. #fail Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: >So Amazon and Google are taking advantage, of course they are. Good >luck to them (I guess.) > >What we should be angry about is presented elegantly in the following >comment (and, for what it's worth, is also an example of why I feel a >great shame we are loosing the Friday board meeting.) > >Adam > > >Dakar, ICANN Board meeting > >>>MIKE SILBER: Thank you, Chair. I intend to vote against this >motion and I would like to read my reasons. > >Some people might think from previous votes that this is a principle >objection to new gTLD program. On the contrary, it's because I >believe in the new gTLD program as a logical extension from the >creation of ICANN, and more importantly in the bottom-up >multistakeholder model that I intend to vote in this way. > >There are three primary reasons for my vote. The first, the current >communications plan ignores the board resolution of March 2010 in >Nairobi and specifically community input. The Nairobi resolution >states, and I will just read the relevant part, "ICANN will work with >the SOs and ACs to leverage the," or I believe that's a typo and it >should be "their networks and design the timeline around the actual >launch." > >Public comment on the communications plan, both formal and informal as >well as GAC guidance, all called for the use and inclusion of the >community and the regional inclusiveness of the communications plan. >This has not occurred, and instead, a top-down English dominated >program has resulted with a single figurehead representing the >entirety of the massive amount of community work on the program. > >None of the community, and for that matter, the board's input appears >to have been taken into account. > >The second reason, the current budget request is in my view an attempt >to rescue a communications plan which has been badly designed and >executed. Despite repeated and ongoing assurances of the readiness of >the organization with regards communications, up to Singapore and >beyond it, few of the plan's objectives in the current plan appear to >have been made. > >The current budget of approximately $805,000 has seen the development >of a new gTLD microsite and related materials and the attendance >primarily of the CEO at events around the world. These have included >ICANN-hosted events as well as attendance at various technology events >and, with a few notable exceptions, these have taken place in >developed countries. > >Outreach in Africa is claimed as comprising three events: the IGF >Nairobi, this meeting, and attendance at Highway Africa in >Grahamstown, South Africa, not Cape Town, an event that ICANN has >attended consistently for many years. All three events are budgeted >for elsewhere within the ICANN budget. > >It accordingly appears that not a single extra cent has been spent on >outreach to Africa. > >This is in spite of a budget item of $500,000 of than 805,000 for >outreach in the five regions, which one would expect would be >apportioned equally or at least fairly across the five regions. I >have been advised that this may be a budget reference from a version >prior to the proposed reversion; however, this does not detract from >the fact if there had been no spend on regional outreach in Africa and >no plan to do so as currently appears, there would be at least 100,000 >U.S. dollars or more available to be spent on consultants. > >Furthermore, outreach involving the appearance of one or more North >Americans standing on a podium undermines the involvement of this >volunteer community on these issues, and a bottom-up process which may >have seen more direct engagement if it had been trusted to assist with >communications in the same way it had been trusted to actually develop >the policy that this grand world tour is now trying to promote. > >The third reason, the current neglect of African countries developing >in Africa in particular will be perpetuated even with the additional >budget. The consultants that the additional budget will pay, Burson >Marsteller, as well as the advertising agencies that they will >subcontract, most likely the same agency which in turn owns Burson >Marsteller, will have -- or have a significant reputation and have >been touted as ideal to provide worldwide coverage. > >In fact, the list of offices and affiliates on their Web site is >impressive, particularly coverage in Africa, until one digs a little >deeper and finds out that there are two offices in Africa, one in >Cairo covering Egypt and one in Johannesburg covering South Africa as >well as the entire African continent. > >I am a proud South African but doubt I could do a better job of >engaging the media and the community in Morocco, Mozambique or Malawi >as a local could. > >A broken new gTLD communications plan. > > >[ Applause ] > >>>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mike. > >As you can tell from the audience reaction, as I know you know from >our discussions, we have had long debates and taken all of this quite >seriously. > > >END > > >On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I really do not understnd the suprise, shock and gnashing of teeth >about this. I certanly have expected and have been talking about it >for a long time. >> >> The argument that this is not in the service of the public interest >is funny, since people like Bertrand who wanted to only allow names >that were in the public interst was shot down most definately as being >just another beauty contest. whoever could build a business case and >buy the bigget bucks was the best owner, we were told (except for the >community names that most of those who might complain told us were not >really possible) . This was also alwasy one of the reasons for the VI >work; what if some company got a name for itself that it wanted to keep >private using it for its own purposes;yeah i expect tha these users >need to sign the RAA and pay that fee too. >> >> Why are we surprised that someone did what was expected to be one of >the options. >> >> I think this is one of the innovations we were led to expect. >> >> What surprised me was the agribusiness approach to the thousand >flowers ablooming that some of the purveyors of registry services >engaged in. I expected some to buy bunches or even dozens and maybe >even a score or two. But hundreds? That shocked me. And as I told >some friends, I wasn't sure whether i was in awe or dread. But in the >end, i think we got a diversity of approaches, and that strikes me as a >good thing overall. >> >> avri >> >> >> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.ie> wrote: >> >>>I think a couple of the mainstream media outlets picked up on this, >but >>>this really worries me and probably others: >>> >>>http://www.internetnews.me/2012/06/14/big-brands-trying-to-corner-generic-n… >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Michele >>> >>> >>>Mr Michele Neylon >>>Blacknight Solutions ♞ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GTLD-WG mailing list >> GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg >> >> Working Group direct URL: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs avri

8 7

Registrars: The new travel agents? (was Re: [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics)
by Evan Leibovitch June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

On 15 June 2012 11:23, "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.ie > wrote: > I think a couple of the mainstream media outlets picked up on this, but > this really worries me and probably others: > > > http://www.internetnews.me/2012/06/14/big-brands-trying-to-corner-generic-n… > I think that the entrance of the Big Brands is the best possible "unintended consequence" of the TLD expansion for content providers and end users. It blows wide open the ICANN domain industry bubble and exposes it to the real world. Verisign goes from being the big guy in the room to one of the small ones. And the influx of radically different business models is indeed the introduction of true competition. New players in the domain space (such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple) means: - Who needs the middleman of registrars? All of them have their own well established retail mechanisms, and registrars offer them no value that they don't already have. - Since these companies already have strong global Internet infrastructures (and at least one has already been playing<https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/>with domain name infrastructures), they have no need for any of the service providers who currently control the name space and think they control ICANN - The Verisign "market power" problem evaporates, but for different reasons than expected. (It wouldn't surprise me if they were a buyout target soon) - Registries who make their money from advertising, or data, or sales of other things, will have the freedom to give away domains for free (and not just in those cheesy hosting/domain-name bundles), or to lease/rent them as needed - The big brands will likely offer more stability and be more vigilant (for example, about WHOIS data) than the status quo; they -- unlike ICANN -- have corporate reputations, other business lines and valued government relationships to protect - At the registries that give away domains, there is no incentive for domainers or speculators; as a result their namespace is far cleaner (and genuine content providers are more likely to find the names they want), and thus more trusted by end users than the domain-for-sale registries - The free offerings at new registries will have a positive (to end users and registrants) side-effect of dramatically lowering the value of speculative domains in new AND existing registries (especially the ccTLDs masquerading as gTLDs -- I'm looking at you, Colombia) Michele, you know I love you. But I think you're right to be concerned. If the rollout happens as you fear and I hope for, registrars face the same future as travel agents. But just as some travel agents still survive by servicing the hell out of clients and being far more than mere middleman in a financial transaction, so will be the case for registrars that thrive in ICANN's post-expansion era. I've always been cynical about the gTLD expansion because all I'd seen from it was ICANN's usual suspects engaging in their little power trips, shell games and speculation plays. And indeed many of the gTLD applications appear to indicate simply a higher-stakes form of domaining. But now that a bigger picture is emerging, I'm happier to see the expansion take place, and welcome the new big players into the family of registries. The gTLD expansion was at the outset a play mainly of pure greed and vanity, designed to satisfy demand that was mostly manufactured, or non-existent. It's gratifying to see the end results playing out in "be careful what you wish for" fashion. - Evan

3 4

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics
by Carlton Samuels June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

+++1. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com>wrote: > The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on > perspective: > > - The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly > pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood enough > to take advantage of the opportunity; > > - It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world > players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant > support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its > actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, enables > those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide > sensibilities. > > - Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public interest > had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was > asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public interest > community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So > naturally, it never stood a chance. > > - There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of > speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet > infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive that > ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or > development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for > applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW > ... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are > unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of > internet content and services. > > The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's mandate. > The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. The > third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. And > the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed. > > Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. > On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > wrote: > > > The three support applications are particularly disappointing in > > light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants. > > > > Alan > > > > At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and > > >people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even > > >while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 > > >applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And > > >while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from > > >ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GTLD-WG mailing list > > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > > > Working Group direct URL: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others G At-Large GTLD WG List <gtld.-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> oing After Generics
by Avri Doria June 16, 2012

June 16, 2012

Hi, Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total. By any definition, while we have been able to get a thousand flowers to bloom, with the help of the agribusiness applicants, we GAC not manged to do any real outreach to developing regions. #fail Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: >So Amazon and Google are taking advantage, of course they are. Good >luck to them (I guess.) > >What we should be angry about is presented elegantly in the following >comment (and, for what it's worth, is also an example of why I feel a >great shame we are loosing the Friday board meeting.) > >Adam > > >Dakar, ICANN Board meeting > >>>MIKE SILBER: Thank you, Chair. I intend to vote against this >motion and I would like to read my reasons. > >Some people might think from previous votes that this is a principle >objection to new gTLD program. On the contrary, it's because I >believe in the new gTLD program as a logical extension from the >creation of ICANN, and more importantly in the bottom-up >multistakeholder model that I intend to vote in this way. > >There are three primary reasons for my vote. The first, the current >communications plan ignores the board resolution of March 2010 in >Nairobi and specifically community input. The Nairobi resolution >states, and I will just read the relevant part, "ICANN will work with >the SOs and ACs to leverage the," or I believe that's a typo and it >should be "their networks and design the timeline around the actual >launch." > >Public comment on the communications plan, both formal and informal as >well as GAC guidance, all called for the use and inclusion of the >community and the regional inclusiveness of the communications plan. >This has not occurred, and instead, a top-down English dominated >program has resulted with a single figurehead representing the >entirety of the massive amount of community work on the program. > >None of the community, and for that matter, the board's input appears >to have been taken into account. > >The second reason, the current budget request is in my view an attempt >to rescue a communications plan which has been badly designed and >executed. Despite repeated and ongoing assurances of the readiness of >the organization with regards communications, up to Singapore and >beyond it, few of the plan's objectives in the current plan appear to >have been made. > >The current budget of approximately $805,000 has seen the development >of a new gTLD microsite and related materials and the attendance >primarily of the CEO at events around the world. These have included >ICANN-hosted events as well as attendance at various technology events >and, with a few notable exceptions, these have taken place in >developed countries. > >Outreach in Africa is claimed as comprising three events: the IGF >Nairobi, this meeting, and attendance at Highway Africa in >Grahamstown, South Africa, not Cape Town, an event that ICANN has >attended consistently for many years. All three events are budgeted >for elsewhere within the ICANN budget. > >It accordingly appears that not a single extra cent has been spent on >outreach to Africa. > >This is in spite of a budget item of $500,000 of than 805,000 for >outreach in the five regions, which one would expect would be >apportioned equally or at least fairly across the five regions. I >have been advised that this may be a budget reference from a version >prior to the proposed reversion; however, this does not detract from >the fact if there had been no spend on regional outreach in Africa and >no plan to do so as currently appears, there would be at least 100,000 >U.S. dollars or more available to be spent on consultants. > >Furthermore, outreach involving the appearance of one or more North >Americans standing on a podium undermines the involvement of this >volunteer community on these issues, and a bottom-up process which may >have seen more direct engagement if it had been trusted to assist with >communications in the same way it had been trusted to actually develop >the policy that this grand world tour is now trying to promote. > >The third reason, the current neglect of African countries developing >in Africa in particular will be perpetuated even with the additional >budget. The consultants that the additional budget will pay, Burson >Marsteller, as well as the advertising agencies that they will >subcontract, most likely the same agency which in turn owns Burson >Marsteller, will have -- or have a significant reputation and have >been touted as ideal to provide worldwide coverage. > >In fact, the list of offices and affiliates on their Web site is >impressive, particularly coverage in Africa, until one digs a little >deeper and finds out that there are two offices in Africa, one in >Cairo covering Egypt and one in Johannesburg covering South Africa as >well as the entire African continent. > >I am a proud South African but doubt I could do a better job of >engaging the media and the community in Morocco, Mozambique or Malawi >as a local could. > >A broken new gTLD communications plan. > > >[ Applause ] > >>>STEVE CROCKER: Thank you very much, Mike. > >As you can tell from the audience reaction, as I know you know from >our discussions, we have had long debates and taken all of this quite >seriously. > > >END > > >On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I really do not understnd the suprise, shock and gnashing of teeth >about this. I certanly have expected and have been talking about it >for a long time. >> >> The argument that this is not in the service of the public interest >is funny, since people like Bertrand who wanted to only allow names >that were in the public interst was shot down most definately as being >just another beauty contest. whoever could build a business case and >buy the bigget bucks was the best owner, we were told (except for the >community names that most of those who might complain told us were not >really possible) . This was also alwasy one of the reasons for the VI >work; what if some company got a name for itself that it wanted to keep >private using it for its own purposes;yeah i expect tha these users >need to sign the RAA and pay that fee too. >> >> Why are we surprised that someone did what was expected to be one of >the options. >> >> I think this is one of the innovations we were led to expect. >> >> What surprised me was the agribusiness approach to the thousand >flowers ablooming that some of the purveyors of registry services >engaged in. I expected some to buy bunches or even dozens and maybe >even a score or two. But hundreds? That shocked me. And as I told >some friends, I wasn't sure whether i was in awe or dread. But in the >end, i think we got a diversity of approaches, and that strikes me as a >good thing overall. >> >> avri >> >> >> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.ie> wrote: >> >>>I think a couple of the mainstream media outlets picked up on this, >but >>>this really worries me and probably others: >>> >>>http://www.internetnews.me/2012/06/14/big-brands-trying-to-corner-generic-n… >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Michele >>> >>> >>>Mr Michele Neylon >>>Blacknight Solutions ♞ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GTLD-WG mailing list >> GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg >> >> Working Group direct URL: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

1 0