First of all, I am *extremely* concerned about the compressed timeline. *"Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday" * This is NOT how to do major policy changes!! ICANN has been at tghe DAG for years, and it wants to turn a good suggestion at the Public Forum into complete policy in less than a month? This (along with the absolutely ridiculous way the IRT was formed) indicates an extremely dangerous sense of panic within either ICANN's Board, staff or both. Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote: Patrick , James, Siva, some thoughts for your task
The proposal from Jothan - who was in the room during Seoul could learn a little about it. I believe it is a good initiative since we need to accelerate the entrance of new gTLDs and the idea gives opportunity to assure for applicants they will be in the next call, and then assure their investors to keep supporting them, as well as Patrick said gives to us - ICANN - a notion o quantity - important to understand whether may have or not a problem at root server level.
Also -- and this may be most important of all -- it lets ICANN knows how many applications will be non-controversial and might have an ability to be fast tracked. The concept of application categories is clearly back, but ICANN needs to see what applications is dealing with in order to know whether a strategy of streams is worthwhile. Some points talked around to you to debate during the work:
a) people may have no intention to open to public their ideas about new TLD, though a lot already did as we saw at Sydney + Seoul meetings
Those operating in stealth will eventually have to come out sometime, might as well be now. ICANN is a public and transparent body and need not care about business justifications for secrecy. I am against ICANN engaging in NDAs with applicants. c) morality issues - GAC had some points related to it - see GAC comuniqués
to the board to have this point over the table.
Could you please point me to those communiques? At the ALAC/GAC meeting I raised the issue of the 'morality and public order' clause. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the existing clause is highly problematic, however they are against taking it out because they want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. Did anyone come away from that meeting with a different perspective? - Evan