Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the Expression of Interest working group. In summary, there is a proposal to the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD. The goal is that it will allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly. For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another. I have joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group. Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday. Looking forward to your comments, Patrick -------- Original Message -------- Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500 Antony Van Couvering avc@mindsandmachines.com I sent the following note to Rod Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the formation charter - the initial first draft plan The charter and the plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony Begin forwarded message: FROM: Antony Van Couvering DATE: November 6, 2009 4:16:44 PM EST TO: Rod Beckstrom CC: peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [3], doug.brent@icann.org [4], kurt.pritz@icann.org [5] SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST WORKING GROUP Gentlemen, Please find attached our correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on October 30 in Seoul. We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful. A full list of our membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities. With best regards, Antony Van Couvering Links: ------ [1] mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org [3] mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org [5] mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org
I also volunteer myself for the working group but not in my ALAC capacity. james On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the Expression of Interest working group.
In summary, there is a proposal to the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD.
The goal is that it will allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly.
For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another.
I have joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group.
Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday.
Looking forward to your comments,
Patrick
-------- Original Message --------
Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500
Antony Van Couvering
avc@mindsandmachines.com
I sent the following note to Rod Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the formation charter - the initial first draft plan The charter and the plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony
Begin forwarded message: FROM: Antony Van Couvering DATE: November 6, 2009 4:16:44 PM EST TO: Rod Beckstrom CC: peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [3], doug.brent@icann.org [4], kurt.pritz@icann.org [5] SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST WORKING GROUP
Gentlemen,
Please find attached our correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on October 30 in Seoul.
We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful.
A full list of our membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities.
With best regards,
Antony Van Couvering
Links: ------ [1] mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org [3] mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org [5] mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thanks James and Siva for volunteering. My understanding is that the group participants were selected as to have both an adequate coverage of all AC/SOs and regions, without favouring one or another. It was also meant to be rather limited so as to move forward fast. Hence, I am afraid there is no possibility to add participants. I note however, that the WG still misses a member from Africa. However, as I said, I would be happy to relay your concerns. Patrick On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:13:11 +0800, James Seng <james@seng.sg> wrote:
I also volunteer myself for the working group but not in my ALAC capacity.
james
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the Expression of Interest working group.
In summary, there is a proposal to the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally
notify
ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD.
The goal is that it will allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly.
For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another.
I have joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group.
Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday.
Looking forward to your comments,
Patrick
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. 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 b) there shall be a substantial deposit (refundable in mostly cases) to guarantee these will be the ones that will face the amount of money to pay for the new TLD ( othewise the quantity info will be not close to the correct number). The amount shall be part of the 185K c) morality issues - GAC had some points related to it - see GAC comuniqués to the board to have this point over the table. d) important,I believe, is to assure dates and times to start processes or the information will only be useful to the existent gTLDs the idea is toa cclelerate the process e) again the issue of non disclosure - I may consider the expression of interest shall come in closed envelop with the info demanded and the payment comproved, and not to be published as individual application ( name/company/name of the TLD/region etc). Only the amount of strings as total. f) But there comes the point of similar strings- in some way people with similar strings shall be informed. If this entrance to this list of Expression of Interest will the the final list, them the second entrant shall be notified that are other similar in a better position in the list. If this list will be not the final one, them both need to be informed to run when the process is supposed to open g) Money will be not refundable in which cases? I believe in f) cases shall be refunded; if staff sees some incongruence in any string proposed the money shall also be refunded etc. thanks for the opportunity to share. Good work and If I can help in any case, keep in touch. Best cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br> vanda@uol.com.br -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:35 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group Thanks James and Siva for volunteering. My understanding is that the group participants were selected as to have both an adequate coverage of all AC/SOs and regions, without favouring one or another. It was also meant to be rather limited so as to move forward fast. Hence, I am afraid there is no possibility to add participants. I note however, that the WG still misses a member from Africa. However, as I said, I would be happy to relay your concerns. Patrick On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:13:11 +0800, James Seng <james@seng.sg> wrote:
I also volunteer myself for the working group but not in my ALAC
capacity.
james
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Patrick Vande Walle
<patrick@vande-walle.eu>wrote:
I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the
Expression of Interest working group.
In summary, there is a proposal to
the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally
notify
ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD.
The goal is that it will
allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will
get.
Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know
for
sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations
accordingly.
For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple
applications for the same string, allowing them to either start
possible
partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the
towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding
and
expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know
that
the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another.
I have
joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate
from
the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was
thought I
could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look
forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group.
Note
that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference
tonight
(Monday) and a final call next Friday.
Looking forward to your comments,
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
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
Just to be clear: - The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server. The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting. As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW. Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
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.
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. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. 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. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. 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 want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick
I was on the call this morning. Not a lot to report. I believe the proposal on the table is along the following lines: 1. ICANN will set a date on which to collect "Expressions of Interest." Or you might call it "New TLD Applications, Stage 1." 2. These filings will contain the name of the entity filing for the TLD, the string sought by the application, and a check for an amount to be agreed. The discussion ranged from $50K on the low end to the full application fee of $185K on the high end. No common view on what the sum should be, though everyone identified pros and cons for each end of the spectrum. 3. The rule would be that only entities filing these "Expressions of Interest" would be allowed to apply in this gTLD round. No one had confidence in an anonymous process. If it were just optional, no one thought anyone would do it except those who had already announced. 4. Disagreement on whether there should be a check box on the "Expression of Interest" form to indicate whether the applicant was planning to apply under the "Community" evaluation criteria. I thought this was a good idea. Others disagreed. That's about it. No discussion of what ICANN will do with these things once it gets them. Frankly, I have a very hard time evaluating whether this is a good idea or not without understanding how the filings will be used by ICANN and the community. Part of me thinks we should finish the process we started. Part of me thinks the proposal above might help move things along by at least identifying the players and strings. It's probably the sort of thing where we need more guidance from the Board and Staff on what they see as the process forward. Bret
Thanks Brett, This pretty well summarizes what I heard, too. I tend to disagree with your conclusions on whether this is a good idea or not. I see several advantages for ICANN, the major one being the ability to clearly quantify the needed resources to process the applications. I also see advantages for applicants. Being able to find common ground for a common applications with other candidates for the same string ahead of the formal application process means less tensions, disputes, conflicts and auctions. In the end, I think this is beneficial for everyone, including registrants. I also understand that it will make it easier for applicants to raise funding. Right now, they are selling hot air, and no-one buys that in this economic downturn environment. My main concern is the deposit required. The cost of this expression of interest process would be marginal for ICANN, because there is no evaluation at that stage. Hence, there is no need to ask for a lot of money. Further, we do not want smaller community-based TLDs might to be eliminated at that stage. We need to have a deposit that will prevent frivolous submissions, but that is all. If it is small enough, it could be non-refundable. Agree that no-one expects ICANN to be able to run an anonymous process. They could even keep the name of their CEO secret for more than 3 days. I support your suggestion to identify community-based applications, but note also that the EOI process will run while the DAG is not yet final. Hence, defining what a community-based application is would be difficult. I think Jothan was the one pointing this out. On a side note, I have enquired about the process of adding more people to the group. There was a similar request originating from another SO/AC. Patrick On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:02:27 -0500 (EST), "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
I was on the call this morning. Not a lot to report.
I believe the proposal on the table is along the following lines:
1. ICANN will set a date on which to collect "Expressions of Interest." Or you might call it "New TLD Applications, Stage 1."
2. These filings will contain the name of the entity filing for the TLD, the string sought by the application, and a check for an amount to be agreed. The discussion ranged from $50K on the low end to the full application fee of $185K on the high end. No common view on what the sum should be, though everyone identified pros and cons for each end of the spectrum.
3. The rule would be that only entities filing these "Expressions of Interest" would be allowed to apply in this gTLD round. No one had confidence in an anonymous process. If it were just optional, no one thought anyone would do it except those who had already announced.
4. Disagreement on whether there should be a check box on the "Expression of Interest" form to indicate whether the applicant was planning to apply under the "Community" evaluation criteria. I thought this was a good idea. Others disagreed.
That's about it. No discussion of what ICANN will do with these things once it gets them.
Frankly, I have a very hard time evaluating whether this is a good idea or not without understanding how the filings will be used by ICANN and the community. Part of me thinks we should finish the process we started. Part of me thinks the proposal above might help move things along by at least identifying the players and strings.
It's probably the sort of thing where we need more guidance from the Board and Staff on what they see as the process forward.
Bret
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Identica: http://identica.vande-walle.eu
2009/11/10 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu>
Thanks Brett,
This pretty well summarizes what I heard, too. I tend to disagree with your conclusions on whether this is a good idea or not.
I see several advantages for ICANN, the major one being the ability to clearly quantify the needed resources to process the applications.
I share Brett's concern. ICANN should have a better understanding of *why* it wants to collect preliminary expressions of interest before it actually implements the collection. Does ICANN want to: - be better prepared for the anticipated volume? - define a clear cutoff point for the next round? - determine if some non-controversial applications can be streamed more quickly through the process? - start collecting funds-in-advance to pay for the anticipated infrastructure? - bring all the prospective applicants out of hiding? - Effect a publicity stunt to demonstrate progress on new gTLDs while the DAG process is still churning? We can't really know what information/money needs to be collected until we know what combination of the above (and/or other) objectives are to be met through this objective. Collecting the data/money before knowing what to do with it seems both wasteful and less-than-honest, while offering applicants little more than a very minor milestone to show to their stakeholders/shareholders. Let's know why we want to do this before discussing how. This really ought to be more than a feel-good, panic driven need to do *anything* that looks like progress. - Evan. PS: Staff has now put out a formal request for feedback on the issue: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200912.htm#eoi-new-gtl...
2. These filings will contain the name of the entity filing for the TLD, the string sought by the application, and a check for an amount to be agreed. The discussion ranged from $50K on the low end to the full application fee of $185K on the high end. No common view on what the sum should be, though everyone identified pros and cons for each end of the spectrum.
Any discussion about whether the fee is refundable if they don't go ahead? If it's non-refundable, I don't see much incentive for potential applicants to show their cards. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Several points have benn made about refundable alternatives during Seoul. When it will be not refundable if in any case, or which process .. there are actually several question not yet responded. Lets see the end of the WG work to see what else need to be done. -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:52 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
2. These filings will contain the name of the entity filing for the TLD, the string sought by the application, and a check for an amount to be agreed. The discussion ranged from $50K on the low end to the full application fee of $185K on the high end. No common view on what the sum should be, though everyone identified pros and cons for each end of the spectrum.
Any discussion about whether the fee is refundable if they don't go ahead? If it's non-refundable, I don't see much incentive for potential applicants to show their cards. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call will be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a hurry before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN endorse the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it. On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people to gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So as a matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see more of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN. If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive timeline they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on Friday). In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but rather the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf call, I think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more months, working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be finally accepted as part of the DAG process. -James Seng On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
Just to be clear:
- The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server.
The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting.
As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW.
Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
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.
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. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. 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. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. 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 want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I support your comments James. It was very interesting process and should have more those in many policy issues. I believe any proposal will be posted to comments and after that we may have a process defined to go further. best -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of James Seng Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:09 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call will be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a hurry before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN endorse the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it. On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people to gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So as a matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see more of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN. If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive timeline they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on Friday). In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but rather the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf call, I think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more months, working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be finally accepted as part of the DAG process. -James Seng On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
Just to be clear:
- The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server.
The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting.
As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW.
Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
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.
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. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. 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. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. 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 want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hello, Nothing against the persons... But I am concern with the composition of the Working Group. 8 of the members have signed a common letter http://www.icann.org/correspondence/van-couvering-to-beckstrom-21sep09-en.pd f 6 didn't sign it, (Maybe because in those stakeholder groups no one sign the letter ;)) 3 names are Awaiting confirmation. I am afraid that we will repeat the same situation than with the IRT. We can be very happy with a bottom-up process but if some rules are not taking into account (like publication of a statement of interest by each participants of "official" WG) it is not good. Geographic diversity is another point of concern. My statement of interest is available at http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/bachollet.html Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Vanda UOL Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 14:06 À : 'At-Large Worldwide' Objet : Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
I support your comments James. It was very interesting process and should have more those in many policy issues. I believe any proposal will be posted to comments and after that we may have a process defined to go further. best
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of James Seng Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:09 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call will be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a hurry before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN endorse the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it.
On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people to gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So as a matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see more of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN.
If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive timeline they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on Friday).
In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but rather the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf call, I think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more months, working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be finally accepted as part of the DAG process.
-James Seng
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande- walle.eu
wrote:
Just to be clear:
- The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have not asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my personal mail server.
The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with a proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to present to the board at its December meeting.
As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information I have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is still waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW.
Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02:
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.
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. I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of the goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a priority treatment. 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. This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an official policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. This is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my personal capacity. 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 want *some* provision there and they have no alternative ideas. The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow those who submit controversial proposals that generate large opposition from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Patrick, Count me in. I am interested in help and volunteer for this group. See you soon. Khaled Patrick Vande Walle a écrit :
I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the Expression of Interest working group.
In summary, there is a proposal to the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD.
The goal is that it will allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly.
For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another.
I have joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group.
Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday.
Looking forward to your comments,
Patrick
-------- Original Message --------
Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500
Antony Van Couvering
avc@mindsandmachines.com
I sent the following note to Rod Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the formation charter - the initial first draft plan The charter and the plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony
Begin forwarded message: FROM: Antony Van Couvering DATE: November 6, 2009 4:16:44 PM EST TO: Rod Beckstrom CC: peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [3], doug.brent@icann.org [4], kurt.pritz@icann.org [5] SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST WORKING GROUP
Gentlemen,
Please find attached our correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on October 30 in Seoul.
We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful.
A full list of our membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities.
With best regards,
Antony Van Couvering
Links: ------ [1] mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org [3] mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org [5] mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (8)
-
Bret Fausett -
Evan Leibovitch -
James Seng -
John R. Levine -
Khaled KOUBAA -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Sébastien Bachollet -
Vanda UOL