That they did.

Back to George's 2nd reason for voting no, he was unhappy with the configuration of the Applicant Support program. He argued then that a fund to bootstrap gTLD registries in developing economies would see ICANN engaged in picking winners and losers, and likely a distortion of the market. He favoured a mix of initiatives, some of which could be funded by ICANN. 

I like George and continue so to do.  But the case he made against applicant support - and a major reason for his no vote - is internally inconsistent in logic and is absolved in outcome.  I can now acknowledge that I was in constant communication with Katim Touray during the period, indeed from around 2009.

Here's what we know. Paraphrasing a former Prime Minister of Jamaica - Edward P.G. Seaga - it ALWAYS takes cash to care. Ironically, even George in his statement so acknowledged this fact!  So we're down to how you use the cash and, to what end.  If you believe that sustainability of the domain name system is vested in extending market participation in developing economies and the barrier to entry and further participation is hostage to lack of cash resources, then tell me a better way to make cash available/free up cash resources than subsidies! 

Subsidization, even in 'free' markets, is not an unknown practice to metropolitan economies; farm support, ethanol subsidies, sugar support, export support you name them.  But every time it is proposed for developing economies there is a chorus of 'well, this is kinda wrong for those fellas'.    

It is an unassailable fact that ICANN has engaged in picking winners AND losers since it booted the domain name market. That a slight change in the process via which it achieves this would distort the market cannot be sustained in both fact and now, experience. 

-Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:47 PM, 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> 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> 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-gtlds-20jun11-en.txt
 , 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>
 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
 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
 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
 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

 At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org