Most would know that I have already declared on these lists an abiding interest in maintaining a strict observation of the Review Group's remit. Consequently, I am on record as rejecting - and urging the Review Group's rejection - oversight of this issue. I am also on record for recommending a punt to the relevant At-Large WG. This happens to be the gTLD WG, largely determined from its charter. To the extent that the Chair accepts the materiality of the issue, I am prepared to vigourously debate the matter, if only for the intellectual jousting. All this aside and knowing where we are today, I am also on record for describing the central idea at issue - ably outlined by Evan - and its likely resolution as 'attempting to shut the gate when the horse has already bolted'. Kind regards, - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
hi,
the token holder was used to designate the person who thought the issue was important enough to be brought up and included on the list.
the expectation, stated repeatedly in the group, was that others interested in this topic would aggregate around this person and actually get a recommendation drafted for the group to consider and work on.
there was also component it that while I would track the work and build tables that referenced it, I was not going to be the one as chair of the group to actually work each of these issues. I would put them on every meeting's agenda and see if anything had been done. and if after a long time nothing had been done, i would ask the group whether they thought the topic should be dropped from the list of issues worth considering and working on.
if the term is so odious or confusing please suggest another.
on the other hand, you could just accept the term and either do something or say you don't want to hold the token.
cheers
Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 27 September 2012 11:57, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
You say that it is within the scope of the WG to give advice on the private gTLD issue. You have pointed to me to the page where the listed issues for the WG can be seen. Here I see that on the issue of private gTLDs the token holder (not exactly sure what it means though) is Evan Leibovitch.
Actually, I'm not sure what the term "token holder" means either. I know I have had an interest in the issue, done significant research, and participated in many relevant ICANN working groups to date. But, then, so have many others here.
However, in an email on 25th Sept, on the newspaper article that I did on private gtlds, Evan had the following to say....
" This would have been an extremely useful intervention ... three years ago. In its current form it's merely an act of hindsight, and as such its value is severely diminished."
In response to my input to the Dev's WG, which he was kind enough to post on the ICANN website, Evan posted a response which claims that
"While I share the concerns and have expressed many myself, the ability to affect gTLD expansion policy in this direction is also long passed."
Indeed, and I stand by that.
If the token holder of the issue of private tlds so firmly believes that this issue is not something that anything can be done about at present, I wonder what is the discussion about.
The ALAC has the bylaw-mandated remit to advise ICANN on any component of its operation, at any time. And its gTLD working group has the ability to advance any issue to the wider ALAC for consideration as formal Advice to the ICANN Board.
In the current application process the ALAC has been given a further capabilty to launch specific objections against specific applications for one of two very specific reasons:
1. The string being applied for is overly offensive of obscene 2. An applicant for a community TLD is not properly representing the claimed community
Your objections do not fall under one of the above categories, so they are beyond ALAC's capacity to object using its explicitly granted authority in this regard. As such, it becomes just another general policy issue, and I am suggesting that this particular issue is long past its due date.
Your core issue -- the private ownership of public words -- was long ago settled by consensus, a consensus in which At-Large participated (and with which some of us -- myself included -- had severe reservations). The embodiment of that consensus is the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, the subject of years of debate and side-debates that is now used as a contractual document. ALAC has the formal freedom to demand the issue be re-opened -- against the desires of every other stakeholder and our own participation in the consensus -- but I believe that to so do would be utterly pointless and ill-advised.
So let's be clear. There was no ALAC "discussion" on the issue before your (and some domain-industry) comments were brought to our attention. The core issue you advanced -- whether or not it had merit -- is now moot. Companies have filed legitimate good-faith applications, and given ICANN monetary deposits, under published guidelines that allow private ownership of TLD strings. So even should I agree with you on your core issue, advancing it at this time (which we are *technically* entitled to do) would either get us ignored or get ICANN sued.
Had you raised them when the applicant guidebook was under intense debate, you may have indeed sparked very useful debate, and perhaps affected opinions and the ALAC's attitudes at a time when we could have had influence on the final expansion policy. But your voice and this PoV was non-existent then. In fact, the real time to make such a case was even longer ago, when precedents were set by the private allocation of TLDs for common words such as .name and .museum.
Lest there be any doubt, I have long held the position -- that most in At-Large can verify -- that the gTLD expansion process as a whole is (with a very few exceptions) an utter waste of resources and, on the balance, harmful to the public interest. As such I have great understanding and and empathy for your position. But I (and other expansion cynics) could have used your support long ago, when the debate might have produced actual policy results.
Right now, though, aggressively stating this case simply comes across as bitter hindsight. And even that hindsight may be misplaced, IMO -- but that's a different topic for, perhaps, a different discussion. Suffice to say for now that it's interesting that the only comments I have seen opposing private ownership of public strings -- besides yours -- come from the domain speculation industry.
Just my opinions.
- Evan
Avri Doria _______________________________________________ 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