Bruce primarily on conflict of interest, but not Mike Dev Anand On Saturday, 19 December 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I believe that Bruce and Mike abstained due to conflict of interest.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On December 19, 2015 1:47:49 PM EST, Dev Anand Teelucksingh < devtee@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','devtee@gmail.com');>> wrote:
Dear Kaili
Just to post the link to the recordings of The Board Session at the ICANN 41 meeting on Monday which passed the resolution to launch the gTLD program: http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24505
It wasn't just George Sadowsky who voted no, Bruce Tonkin and Mike Silber also abstained.
Dev Anand
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca');>> wrote:
Hi Kaili,
If you were at that meeting *AND* remember what was said, I don't think you are eligible to be called a newcomer any more!
For better or worse, ICANN preserves pretty much everything. You can find that transcript at http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-board-new-gtl... , If you search for the second occurrence of "sadowsky", you will find what you are looking for. It was a rather unusual Board meeting held immediately after the opening session on Monday. I always presumed it was held on the Monday instead of the traditional end-of-the-week time to allow time for partying and self-congratulations.
To find pretty much everything available from past meetings, go to the Meetings site at https://meetings.icann.org/en/. It is always (hopefully) pointed to from the ICANN home page in the box talking about the upcoming meeting. from there, click on the top navigation menu item "Calendar and Archives". The ICANNnn links point to the specific meet ing site.
Alan
At 19/12/2015 11:13 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:
Talking about the new gTLD program, I remember attending the 2011 ICANN 41 in Singapore. As I remember, that time George Sadowski was the only Board member who voted against it. Maybe some of his opinions, as well as records of the debate, could shed some light for new comers like me to better understand the issue.
I just wonder where I can find this. Anybody can help? Thank you.
Kaili Kan
----- Original Message ----- From: Carlton Samuels To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: John R. Levine ; At-Large Worldwide Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:14 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here. Our colleague Evan Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statemen t on PAG had a greater task keeping us focused on the priority topics than finding grist for what was wrong with the details of the program, at least from our perspective.
We were the first to call the Morality and Public Order clause odious and an assault on common sense. And despite the severe criticism the ALAC, to its credit, did not back off our interest in the Applicant Support initiative. This never met expectations. But at least we were in the fight. We should be proud of the body of work from the ALAC in that period.
-Carlton
------------------------------
Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ocl@gih.com');>> wrote: Dear Christopher,
sorry I am only picking this up now - it was filed in the wrong folder. My comments below:
On 09/12/2015 20:08, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Hmmm … following a brief readd (there are 160 pp.), it would appear:
1. That there was no attempt to update the 2010 economic studies, which were considered to be adequate.
The economic study (which can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2010-12-03-en ) was published in two parts, such was the pressure on ICANN to be able to tick the "economic study" box that had been set along the path to launching the new gTLD process. From memory, a public consultation on these reports was never lau nched. The only ALAC comment relating to the Applicant Guidebook & the new gTLD program was here: http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-agbv5-08dec10-en.pdf As you can see, the ALAC was not happy about a number of things which then came back to bite ICANN later on. "told you so" In the meantime, read the economic study and you'll see how naive and rushed it is.
2. There is one reference to an opinion that the demand for new gTLDs was 'illusory'. Not clear whether this refers to the demand from Registries or from Registrants.
There was a demand for new gTLDs from potential applicants. Some applicants had already "sold" their program to investors and clients. I have s trong memories of the ICANN public forum having scores of people queueing up asking the Board to give the new gTLD program the go ahead, and that the applicant guidebook was good enough to be signed off. The ALAC view, as you can see from above, was that it wasn't ready. That introduced some tension all around, with some people accusing the ALAC that it was against new gTLDs and that this position was counter to Internet end users out there who couldn't register domain names in an already crowded space. The ALAC stood by its position but was completely ignored. Moreover you'll note that there's a complete fumble on ICANN's part with regards to Registrant Rights & Responsibilities with a botched "Registrant Benefits" part and "Registrant Rights" sub-part. Anyway --- very poor follow-up on this on ICANN's part.
As a result, I am shedding no tears for any failed new gTLD. I am sorry for the end use rs that are going to be affected and I think that the ALAC needs to watch this very closely, to make sure end users who have registered domains in new gTLDs are treated well. The ALAC's relevant working groups should keep a watch over that. Unfortunately the most active participants are already flat out on ICANN Accountability & other things, but the WGs would benefit from sharp eyes & tongues.
3. There are several references to the financial evaluation of the applicants. However, one may wonder what that consisted of as applied to 800+ applicants (and still counting). I would have to ask how many qualified financial analysts would have been required to do a serious job on so many applications in such a short period of time. In my time it was called risk analysis; no wadays it is called 'stress tests'.
The gist of the report seems to be to recommend a massive new PDP to review and propose what to do next. Every conceivable topic is included, except the economics of the DNS markets and the financial position of the Registries. Perhaps some prioritisation is called for.
At-Large participants will need to be part of that PDP. Expect it to start soon as once again there are forces out there that want another application round of Ponz... I mean new gTLDs to start as soon as possible. Kindest regards,
Olivier
------------------------------
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org');> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
------------------------------
------------------------------
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org');> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
------------------------------
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org');> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org