Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
FYI the report is attached. ALAC comments have, on the whole, been taken into account. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Liaison to the GNSO -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 23:15:30 +0000 From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> To: council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org> Dear Councilors, Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-.... You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-.... In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex. The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance. The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Best, *Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager *ICANN *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_... Good evening. Did the WG see this coming? I shall read the report. CW On 09 Dec 2015, at 17:17, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
FYI the report is attached. ALAC comments have, on the whole, been taken into account. Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 23:15:30 +0000 From: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> To: council@gnso.icann.org <council@gnso.icann.org>
Dear Councilors,
Please find attached for your consideration the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which is also available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-.... You may recall that the Council requested an Issue Report on the topic at the Buenos Aires meeting in June 2015. Under the ICANN Bylaws, an Issue Report is a mandatory preceding step to a possible PDP that is initiated by the GNSO Council. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 31 August 2015, with the forum closing on 30 October 2015. The Report of Public Comments received is expected to be published on 4 December 2015 and made available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-....
In preparing this Final Issue Report, all the public comments received were analyzed and, where relevant, incorporated into the Final Issue Report. The Report of Public Comments has also been added as a separate Annex.
The staff recommendation is that the Council initiate a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.
The relevant motions are currently in preparation for proposal by a GNSO Councilor.
If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
<subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming? I shall read the report.
If you look at the actual new TLD registration numbers compared to the fantasy predictions, it's hard to miss. R's, John
Hmmm … following a brief read (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. 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. 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; nowadays 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. CW On 09 Dec 2015, at 20:14, "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming? I shall read the report.
If you look at the actual new TLD registration numbers compared to the fantasy predictions, it's hard to miss.
R's, John
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 read (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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
Dear Olivier: Thankyou for your considered and detailed comments on my admittedly rather grumpy overview. I trust that the Community may proceed in a more sensible manner in the future. CW On 18 Dec 2015, at 19:06, 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 read (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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here. Our colleague Evan Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statement 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 read (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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
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 statement 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 read (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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
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 meeting 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: <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>Carlton Samuels To: <mailto:ocl@gih.com>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: <mailto:johnl@iecc.com>John R. Levine ; <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 statement 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 <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>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>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 launched. 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>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 strong 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 users 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;
nowadays 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 <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org>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
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-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 meeting 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 statement 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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
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-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 meeting 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 statement 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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
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
As usual, Dev and his research prowess cannot be denied. However with Silber, I'm prepared to take it at face value his reason is 'conflict of interest'. For what I sense of him is way darker...... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
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> 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-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> 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
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-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> 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
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.
Considering that most of the new public TLDs look like failures by any reasonable metric, so much that ICANN's had to revise their budget to reflect the lack of income from registrants who didn't register, ICANN did the developing countries a favor by not encouraging them to waste their money. There are a lot of good ways to spend development money, but yet another TLD isn't one of them. R's, John
We need to understand the dynamic of new gTLDs. Like here in Brazil ( and certainly in several countries) banks registered their name for their own security reasons, not to sell; other names has no reason to exist because has no meaning. But some of them are quite good and are selling well. Of course IDNs generic names are quite relevant for people around the world to keep in touch with their culture. I believe this round of TLDs was a learning experience not only for ICANN but also for all applicants to think better about the potential market before they decide to apply to own a new gTLD, since the general cost to launch it properly is around 1 million US$ if you are not yet a registry. I am not in favor to have another round of gTLDs. It is a long process and users need to understand better the advantages, risks etc. My 2 cents Great holidays to you all!! Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. On 12/20/15, 10:32 PM, "at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of John R. Levine" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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.
Considering that most of the new public TLDs look like failures by any reasonable metric, so much that ICANN's had to revise their budget to reflect the lack of income from registrants who didn't register, ICANN did the developing countries a favor by not encouraging them to waste their money.
There are a lot of good ways to spend development money, but yet another TLD isn't one of them.
R's, John _______________________________________________ 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
On 20/12/2015 21:25, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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 vaguely remember I had asked George about his vote. He was adamant that a lot more should have been done by ICANN for applicant support and that the Applicant Support Program that we had designed in haste was just a plastercast on a wooden leg. It would be interesting to ask Board members individually if any of them regret their vote? Kindest regards, Olivier
Thanks a lot, Alan and Dev Anand. Now, it seems like there were some serious disagreements on this issue from the very begining, not exactly a consensus as usual. I will try to study these documents you provided. Thanks again. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com> To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: "Kan Kaili" <kankaili@gmail.com>; "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com>; "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>; "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>; "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 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-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 meeting 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 statement 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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
+1 And indeed, a good summary from Olivier. Dev Anand On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here. Our colleague Evan Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statement 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 read (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 launched. 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 strong 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 users 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; nowadays 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
+1 On 19-Dec-15 09:14, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming?
The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of which were disregarded)? Yes, it did. And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some survive and some don't. This is the way it should be with products. I hated it when the store I bought most of my clothing came from shut down. But I am learning to cope with it. Found another store, in fact more than one. Likewise both people and even businesses can learn to cope. Web sites can be moved, what's the big deal as long as there is time to take care of it? The safe bet will still be an incumbent, those who can tolerate more risk will have greater choice. In time there will be other successful registries, especially those from the portfolio applicants who can afford to carry an unsuccessful name, and those will be added to the list of available names for people who cannot tolerate risk. I do not understand this wringing of hands over the fact that some of the flowers that bloom die. Everything is temporary, we should be used to it. And some of those names will be picked up by those registries who have a better idea for how to market them. I think EBERO was good idea to give TLDs that might be picked up a chance and to give people time to move if not. But expectations of eternal availability for TLDs seems silly to me. Do you think that guarantees should be available for any subsequent TLDs? avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Avri:
This is the way it should be with products.
The analogy is false: a TLD is not a 'product'.
Web sites can be moved …
Maybe, but I would not have an idea as to how to do that. More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? CW On 09 Dec 2015, at 23:17, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming?
The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of which were disregarded)? Yes, it did. And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some survive and some don't. This is the way it should be with products.
I hated it when the store I bought most of my clothing came from shut down. But I am learning to cope with it. Found another store, in fact more than one.
Likewise both people and even businesses can learn to cope. Web sites can be moved, what's the big deal as long as there is time to take care of it?
The safe bet will still be an incumbent, those who can tolerate more risk will have greater choice. In time there will be other successful registries, especially those from the portfolio applicants who can afford to carry an unsuccessful name, and those will be added to the list of available names for people who cannot tolerate risk.
I do not understand this wringing of hands over the fact that some of the flowers that bloom die. Everything is temporary, we should be used to it. And some of those names will be picked up by those registries who have a better idea for how to market them. I think EBERO was good idea to give TLDs that might be picked up a chance and to give people time to move if not. But expectations of eternal availability for TLDs seems silly to me.
Do you think that guarantees should be available for any subsequent TLDs?
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it?
To an extent. Contractual conditions, consensus policies, predictable processes, adherence to the law. We certainly need more privacy protection &c. Some of us even want to go so far as to make sure the registrants' human rights are protected. Beyond that are registrants to be protected from all consequences of their purchasing choices? Why? If I pay money for something that turns out to be less that I hoped it would be, as so often happens, why should I be protected from that? Businesses fail. And when they do, their loyal customers are affected as well. avri avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Yup, Volkswagen owes its buyers nothing. Who needs any of this consumer protection nonsense anywhere? Sheesh. On Dec 10, 2015, 08:33, at 08:33, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it?
To an extent. Contractual conditions, consensus policies, predictable processes, adherence to the law. We certainly need more privacy protection &c. Some of us even want to go so far as to make sure the registrants' human rights are protected.
Beyond that are registrants to be protected from all consequences of their purchasing choices? Why? If I pay money for something that turns out to be less that I hoped it would be, as so often happens, why should I be protected from that? Businesses fail. And when they do, their loyal customers are affected as well.
avri
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
On 12/9/15 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? To an extent. ... I very much agree with Avri's positions here.
ICANN was not constructed to be a consumer protection agency. It was constructed to assure stability - in fact in the beginning the word "technical" was always pre-pended to "stability". Stability is not permanency. A DNS TLD is stable if it doesn't wobble within time frames measured in weeks and months. But "stability" of anything related to the internet does not extend to terms measured by unbounded numbers of years. Now it is true, and remains true, that ICANN denies third party beneficiary rights to registrants. Thus domain name registrants have no legal standing to compel TLD operators to meet existing ICANN established standards of operational quality. That is something that would be very valuable and would be easy to put into place but which ICANN has resisted for its entire existence. If anything should be fixed, it is that. The question should be: "How much larger do we want ICANN's already large footprint to become?" ICANN's regulatory footprint is already large and heavy. ICANN required TLD applicants to set aside a full three years of operating costs - that was something I have not seen in any other area of business, even businesses that involve human health and safety. That cost was an enormous burden to applicants, and prevented many people and groups to refrain from even bothering to apply for a TLD. Isn't three years of funded operations "stable"? Should it be ten years, fifty years, a century? And ICANN already requires the new TLD operators to have hired backup operators on hot standby. That added no small amount of initial cost and creates a significant operational overhead cost. Much of what is being proposed strikes me as a revival of centralized five-year style planning, but this time for the internet. I can't say that that kind of centralized planning has had a great history of success. And success is particularly unlikely for something that is so rapidly changing and evolving as the internet. I remember back in the early 1970's when we were playing with packet switched networks that the telephone companies were raising the roofs claiming that we were playing with fire, that we would destroy the wonder-of-the-world which was the national and international telephone network. They were right; we did, eventually. But it was not the economic disaster that was predicted. ICANN can not be, and ought not to be, a guarantor of anything more than the technical quality of upper tier DNS operations. To do more risks strangling the golden goose of the internet or, more likely, sending the goose elsewhere. The example of VW's cheating on emissions was raised as some sort of analogy to ICANN. I do not see that analogy. In the VW case, express statements were made to governments and buyers that vehicles would meet certain emission, power, and mileage numbers. Explicit promises to buyers were knowingly and intentionally broken - or in the words of the law, there was a misstatement of material facts upon which people relied to their detriment - in a word, fraud. In most places fraud is unlawful and those harmed can bring actions to recover their losses. And when really bad, fraud can rise to the criminal level and those responsible be punished. No such promises are made by either ICANN nor TLD sellers beyond that TLD operations will meet certain minimum ICANN established requirements. And no one has said that those requirements are not being met. ICANN's own long term requirement for many TLDs that domain names registrations be limited to no more than ten years undercuts arguments that domain name buyers some how believe that acquisition of domain names is something with permanency similar to a common law fee simple absolute right in real property. Even the word "registration" rather than "purchase" tends to suggest impermanence. I believe that some of the new TLD offerings did make it part of their business plans to provide very long term guarantees. But if I remember correctly, those offerings were orders of magnitude more expensive per year than the more routine TLD offerings. In other words, consumers have options to purchase long term guarantees by choosing those TLDs that make such warranties. If one pushes ICANN to be a consumer protection agency than domain name prices will be forced to significantly rise. Consider how much it would cost to acquire an business continuation insurance policy. The actuaries will crank the numbers in order to maintain 100% continuity for an indefinite period in the face of even unforeseeable risks and come up with a whopping dollar number that will strangle DNS innovation or drive people to do what has always been possible but always been dismissed because the existing system runs very well: competing DNS systems outside of the ICANN realm. But if one looks at an even longer time scale - say ten years - it is becoming very clear that DNS names - which includes all TLDs - are slowly submerging to become internal internet machinery and not really of much interest to users. Things like Facebook and Twitter handles and URL's (which don't need to contain domain names at all) are becoming the names and addresses of the internet. In that future *all* TLDs are at risk of loosing revenue streams. ICANN is already bloated to the degree that one fears that it is at risk from just one thin wafer (that's a Monty Python reference). There is not much that is funny when one begins to compare ICANN's staff size and budgets to that of the ITU (especially if one plots the growth of those numbers of each body over time and asks "when will they intersect?") --karl--
+1 I remember the early discussions on the ICANN Board about the introduction of new TLDs. When discussing the risk of failure of the new TLDs, I said that I did not understand where was the problem: we could, for instance, have a .lousy TLD, with names sold at a bargain price, but no guarantee of continuity, and a .perfect TLD with a different profile, but at a higher price. And the consumer will choose, knowing the risk and advantages in either case. To a certain extent, this is what is happening now - for sure there are TLDs that face a higher risk of failure than others - and in the medium term prices will adjust to this. Cheers, R
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Karl Auerbach Inviato: giovedì 10 dicembre 2015 10:56 A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
On 12/9/15 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? To an extent. ... I very much agree with Avri's positions here.
ICANN was not constructed to be a consumer protection agency. It was constructed to assure stability - in fact in the beginning the word "technical" was always pre-pended to "stability". Stability is not permanency. A DNS TLD is stable if it doesn't wobble within time frames measured in weeks and months. But "stability" of anything related to the internet does not extend to terms measured by unbounded numbers of years.
Now it is true, and remains true, that ICANN denies third party beneficiary rights to registrants. Thus domain name registrants have no legal standing to compel TLD operators to meet existing ICANN established standards of operational quality. That is something that would be very valuable and would be easy to put into place but which ICANN has resisted for its entire existence. If anything should be fixed, it is that.
The question should be: "How much larger do we want ICANN's already large footprint to become?"
ICANN's regulatory footprint is already large and heavy.
ICANN required TLD applicants to set aside a full three years of operating costs - that was something I have not seen in any other area of business, even businesses that involve human health and safety. That cost was an enormous burden to applicants, and prevented many people and groups to refrain from even bothering to apply for a TLD. Isn't three years of funded operations "stable"? Should it be ten years, fifty years, a century?
And ICANN already requires the new TLD operators to have hired backup operators on hot standby. That added no small amount of initial cost and creates a significant operational overhead cost.
Much of what is being proposed strikes me as a revival of centralized five- year style planning, but this time for the internet. I can't say that that kind of centralized planning has had a great history of success. And success is particularly unlikely for something that is so rapidly changing and evolving as the internet.
I remember back in the early 1970's when we were playing with packet switched networks that the telephone companies were raising the roofs claiming that we were playing with fire, that we would destroy the wonder- of-the-world which was the national and international telephone network. They were right; we did, eventually. But it was not the economic disaster that was predicted.
ICANN can not be, and ought not to be, a guarantor of anything more than the technical quality of upper tier DNS operations. To do more risks strangling the golden goose of the internet or, more likely, sending the goose elsewhere.
The example of VW's cheating on emissions was raised as some sort of analogy to ICANN. I do not see that analogy. In the VW case, express statements were made to governments and buyers that vehicles would meet certain emission, power, and mileage numbers. Explicit promises to buyers were knowingly and intentionally broken - or in the words of the law, there was a misstatement of material facts upon which people relied to their detriment - in a word, fraud. In most places fraud is unlawful and those harmed can bring actions to recover their losses. And when really bad, fraud can rise to the criminal level and those responsible be punished.
No such promises are made by either ICANN nor TLD sellers beyond that TLD operations will meet certain minimum ICANN established requirements. And no one has said that those requirements are not being met.
ICANN's own long term requirement for many TLDs that domain names registrations be limited to no more than ten years undercuts arguments that domain name buyers some how believe that acquisition of domain names is something with permanency similar to a common law fee simple absolute right in real property. Even the word "registration" rather than "purchase" tends to suggest impermanence.
I believe that some of the new TLD offerings did make it part of their business plans to provide very long term guarantees. But if I remember correctly, those offerings were orders of magnitude more expensive per year than the more routine TLD offerings. In other words, consumers have options to purchase long term guarantees by choosing those TLDs that make such warranties.
If one pushes ICANN to be a consumer protection agency than domain name prices will be forced to significantly rise. Consider how much it would cost to acquire an business continuation insurance policy. The actuaries will crank the numbers in order to maintain 100% continuity for an indefinite period in the face of even unforeseeable risks and come up with a whopping dollar number that will strangle DNS innovation or drive people to do what has always been possible but always been dismissed because the existing system runs very well: competing DNS systems outside of the ICANN realm.
But if one looks at an even longer time scale - say ten years - it is becoming very clear that DNS names - which includes all TLDs - are slowly submerging to become internal internet machinery and not really of much interest to users. Things like Facebook and Twitter handles and URL's (which don't need to contain domain names at all) are becoming the names and addresses of the internet. In that future *all* TLDs are at risk of loosing revenue streams.
ICANN is already bloated to the degree that one fears that it is at risk from just one thin wafer (that's a Monty Python reference). There is not much that is funny when one begins to compare ICANN's staff size and budgets to that of the ITU (especially if one plots the growth of those numbers of each body over time and asks "when will they intersect?")
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
This discussion has brought to light some important points. Karl's analysis, in particular, is deeply relevant, for instance when he remarks that "ICANN can not be, and ought not to be, a guarantor of anything more than the technical quality of upper tier DNS operations". But this begs a question: is there an entity, or perhaps a set of processes, which may provide the kind of guarantee we're talking about here, and which is a legitimate expectation of registrants and, more generally, the global Internet user? What is it, what are they? If not, what type of entity and/or process need(s) to be set up? Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> À: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com>, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Envoyé: Jeudi 10 Décembre 2015 11:41:08 Objet: [At-Large] R: Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures +1 I remember the early discussions on the ICANN Board about the introduction of new TLDs. When discussing the risk of failure of the new TLDs, I said that I did not understand where was the problem: we could, for instance, have a .lousy TLD, with names sold at a bargain price, but no guarantee of continuity, and a ..perfect TLD with a different profile, but at a higher price. And the consumer will choose, knowing the risk and advantages in either case. To a certain extent, this is what is happening now - for sure there are TLDs that face a higher risk of failure than others - and in the medium term prices will adjust to this. Cheers, R
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Karl Auerbach Inviato: giovedì 10 dicembre 2015 10:56 A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
On 12/9/15 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? To an extent. ... I very much agree with Avri's positions here.
ICANN was not constructed to be a consumer protection agency. It was constructed to assure stability - in fact in the beginning the word "technical" was always pre-pended to "stability". Stability is not permanency. A DNS TLD is stable if it doesn't wobble within time frames measured in weeks and months. But "stability" of anything related to the internet does not extend to terms measured by unbounded numbers of years.
Now it is true, and remains true, that ICANN denies third party beneficiary rights to registrants. Thus domain name registrants have no legal standing to compel TLD operators to meet existing ICANN established standards of operational quality. That is something that would be very valuable and would be easy to put into place but which ICANN has resisted for its entire existence. If anything should be fixed, it is that.
The question should be: "How much larger do we want ICANN's already large footprint to become?"
ICANN's regulatory footprint is already large and heavy.
ICANN required TLD applicants to set aside a full three years of operating costs - that was something I have not seen in any other area of business, even businesses that involve human health and safety. That cost was an enormous burden to applicants, and prevented many people and groups to refrain from even bothering to apply for a TLD. Isn't three years of funded operations "stable"? Should it be ten years, fifty years, a century?
And ICANN already requires the new TLD operators to have hired backup operators on hot standby. That added no small amount of initial cost and creates a significant operational overhead cost.
Much of what is being proposed strikes me as a revival of centralized five- year style planning, but this time for the internet. I can't say that that kind of centralized planning has had a great history of success. And success is particularly unlikely for something that is so rapidly changing and evolving as the internet.
I remember back in the early 1970's when we were playing with packet switched networks that the telephone companies were raising the roofs claiming that we were playing with fire, that we would destroy the wonder- of-the-world which was the national and international telephone network. They were right; we did, eventually. But it was not the economic disaster that was predicted.
To do more risks strangling the golden goose of the internet or, more likely, sending the goose elsewhere.
The example of VW's cheating on emissions was raised as some sort of analogy to ICANN. I do not see that analogy. In the VW case, express statements were made to governments and buyers that vehicles would meet certain emission, power, and mileage numbers. Explicit promises to buyers were knowingly and intentionally broken - or in the words of the law, there was a misstatement of material facts upon which people relied to their detriment - in a word, fraud. In most places fraud is unlawful and those harmed can bring actions to recover their losses. And when really bad, fraud can rise to the criminal level and those responsible be punished.
No such promises are made by either ICANN nor TLD sellers beyond that TLD operations will meet certain minimum ICANN established requirements. And no one has said that those requirements are not being met.
ICANN's own long term requirement for many TLDs that domain names registrations be limited to no more than ten years undercuts arguments that domain name buyers some how believe that acquisition of domain names is something with permanency similar to a common law fee simple absolute right in real property. Even the word "registration" rather than "purchase" tends to suggest impermanence.
I believe that some of the new TLD offerings did make it part of their business plans to provide very long term guarantees. But if I remember correctly, those offerings were orders of magnitude more expensive per year than the more routine TLD offerings. In other words, consumers have options to purchase long term guarantees by choosing those TLDs that make such warranties.
If one pushes ICANN to be a consumer protection agency than domain name prices will be forced to significantly rise. Consider how much it would cost to acquire an business continuation insurance policy. The actuaries will crank the numbers in order to maintain 100% continuity for an indefinite period in the face of even unforeseeable risks and come up with a whopping dollar number that will strangle DNS innovation or drive people to do what has always been possible but always been dismissed because the existing system runs very well: competing DNS systems outside of the ICANN realm.
But if one looks at an even longer time scale - say ten years - it is becoming very clear that DNS names - which includes all TLDs - are slowly submerging to become internal internet machinery and not really of much interest to users. Things like Facebook and Twitter handles and URL's (which don't need to contain domain names at all) are becoming the names and addresses of the internet. In that future *all* TLDs are at risk of loosing revenue streams.
ICANN is already bloated to the degree that one fears that it is at risk from just one thin wafer (that's a Monty Python reference). There is not much that is funny when one begins to compare ICANN's staff size and budgets to that of the ITU (especially if one plots the growth of those numbers of each body over time and asks "when will they intersect?")
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
Well, it would be very helpful if ICANN could comment on the IID report. Regarding consumer protection, I would note that there IS a system for Registry recuperation in the form of Registry Data Escrow If IID are close to the mark, ICANN may need to use that, rather sooner than one might have hoped. Regarding differentiation among new TLDs, I think there may be some problems. Would we need TLD 'rating agencies' - ? Regarding the risks to Registrants, one might bear in mind that significant numbers of names are not purchased by private individuals but registered by corporations and other commercial businesses, world wide. If the idea gets around that some of the new TLDs are <.l****>, (which ones?) then that would really not be helpful in marketing new names, even on a short 3-5 year horizon. I would also recall that the ICANN economic strategy that was set up in the 1990's, was to increase Registrar competition and reduce Registry concentration in the DNS markets. How far have we got with that in the last fifteen years? What are the prospects? CW On 10 Dec 2015, at 12:00, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" <jjs@dyalog.net> wrote:
This discussion has brought to light some important points.
Karl's analysis, in particular, is deeply relevant, for instance when he remarks that "ICANN can not be, and ought not to be, a guarantor of anything more than the technical quality of upper tier DNS operations".
But this begs a question: is there an entity, or perhaps a set of processes, which may provide the kind of guarantee we're talking about here, and which is a legitimate expectation of registrants and, more generally, the global Internet user? What is it, what are they? If not, what type of entity and/or process need(s) to be set up?
Best regards, Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> À: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com>, at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Envoyé: Jeudi 10 Décembre 2015 11:41:08 Objet: [At-Large] R: Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
+1 I remember the early discussions on the ICANN Board about the introduction of new TLDs. When discussing the risk of failure of the new TLDs, I said that I did not understand where was the problem: we could, for instance, have a .lousy TLD, with names sold at a bargain price, but no guarantee of continuity, and a ..perfect TLD with a different profile, but at a higher price. And the consumer will choose, knowing the risk and advantages in either case. To a certain extent, this is what is happening now - for sure there are TLDs that face a higher risk of failure than others - and in the medium term prices will adjust to this. Cheers, R
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Karl Auerbach Inviato: giovedì 10 dicembre 2015 10:56 A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
On 12/9/15 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? To an extent. ... I very much agree with Avri's positions here.
ICANN was not constructed to be a consumer protection agency. It was constructed to assure stability - in fact in the beginning the word "technical" was always pre-pended to "stability". Stability is not permanency. A DNS TLD is stable if it doesn't wobble within time frames measured in weeks and months. But "stability" of anything related to the internet does not extend to terms measured by unbounded numbers of years.
Now it is true, and remains true, that ICANN denies third party beneficiary rights to registrants. Thus domain name registrants have no legal standing to compel TLD operators to meet existing ICANN established standards of operational quality. That is something that would be very valuable and would be easy to put into place but which ICANN has resisted for its entire existence. If anything should be fixed, it is that.
The question should be: "How much larger do we want ICANN's already large footprint to become?"
ICANN's regulatory footprint is already large and heavy.
ICANN required TLD applicants to set aside a full three years of operating costs - that was something I have not seen in any other area of business, even businesses that involve human health and safety. That cost was an enormous burden to applicants, and prevented many people and groups to refrain from even bothering to apply for a TLD. Isn't three years of funded operations "stable"? Should it be ten years, fifty years, a century?
And ICANN already requires the new TLD operators to have hired backup operators on hot standby. That added no small amount of initial cost and creates a significant operational overhead cost.
Much of what is being proposed strikes me as a revival of centralized five- year style planning, but this time for the internet. I can't say that that kind of centralized planning has had a great history of success. And success is particularly unlikely for something that is so rapidly changing and evolving as the internet.
I remember back in the early 1970's when we were playing with packet switched networks that the telephone companies were raising the roofs claiming that we were playing with fire, that we would destroy the wonder- of-the-world which was the national and international telephone network. They were right; we did, eventually. But it was not the economic disaster that was predicted.
To do more risks strangling the golden goose of the internet or, more likely, sending the goose elsewhere.
The example of VW's cheating on emissions was raised as some sort of analogy to ICANN. I do not see that analogy. In the VW case, express statements were made to governments and buyers that vehicles would meet certain emission, power, and mileage numbers. Explicit promises to buyers were knowingly and intentionally broken - or in the words of the law, there was a misstatement of material facts upon which people relied to their detriment - in a word, fraud. In most places fraud is unlawful and those harmed can bring actions to recover their losses. And when really bad, fraud can rise to the criminal level and those responsible be punished.
No such promises are made by either ICANN nor TLD sellers beyond that TLD operations will meet certain minimum ICANN established requirements. And no one has said that those requirements are not being met.
ICANN's own long term requirement for many TLDs that domain names registrations be limited to no more than ten years undercuts arguments that domain name buyers some how believe that acquisition of domain names is something with permanency similar to a common law fee simple absolute right in real property. Even the word "registration" rather than "purchase" tends to suggest impermanence.
I believe that some of the new TLD offerings did make it part of their business plans to provide very long term guarantees. But if I remember correctly, those offerings were orders of magnitude more expensive per year than the more routine TLD offerings. In other words, consumers have options to purchase long term guarantees by choosing those TLDs that make such warranties.
If one pushes ICANN to be a consumer protection agency than domain name prices will be forced to significantly rise. Consider how much it would cost to acquire an business continuation insurance policy. The actuaries will crank the numbers in order to maintain 100% continuity for an indefinite period in the face of even unforeseeable risks and come up with a whopping dollar number that will strangle DNS innovation or drive people to do what has always been possible but always been dismissed because the existing system runs very well: competing DNS systems outside of the ICANN realm.
But if one looks at an even longer time scale - say ten years - it is becoming very clear that DNS names - which includes all TLDs - are slowly submerging to become internal internet machinery and not really of much interest to users. Things like Facebook and Twitter handles and URL's (which don't need to contain domain names at all) are becoming the names and addresses of the internet. In that future *all* TLDs are at risk of loosing revenue streams.
ICANN is already bloated to the degree that one fears that it is at risk from just one thin wafer (that's a Monty Python reference). There is not much that is funny when one begins to compare ICANN's staff size and budgets to that of the ITU (especially if one plots the growth of those numbers of each body over time and asks "when will they intersect?")
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with you Roberto, this market is not for rookies. There are several names with no significative market and will not succeed. But there are some of them going very well already. let’s also remember that several of them are not to the open market. Here for instance from 11 new TLDs 4 has market focus. Two bought by.br is just to have a foot on the generic market in the future and other 5 are for their own use and their network. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. On 12/10/15, 8:41 AM, "at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Roberto Gaetano" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
+1 I remember the early discussions on the ICANN Board about the introduction of new TLDs. When discussing the risk of failure of the new TLDs, I said that I did not understand where was the problem: we could, for instance, have a .lousy TLD, with names sold at a bargain price, but no guarantee of continuity, and a .perfect TLD with a different profile, but at a higher price. And the consumer will choose, knowing the risk and advantages in either case. To a certain extent, this is what is happening now - for sure there are TLDs that face a higher risk of failure than others - and in the medium term prices will adjust to this. Cheers, R
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Karl Auerbach Inviato: giovedì 10 dicembre 2015 10:56 A: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
On 12/9/15 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? To an extent. ... I very much agree with Avri's positions here.
ICANN was not constructed to be a consumer protection agency. It was constructed to assure stability - in fact in the beginning the word "technical" was always pre-pended to "stability". Stability is not permanency. A DNS TLD is stable if it doesn't wobble within time frames measured in weeks and months. But "stability" of anything related to the internet does not extend to terms measured by unbounded numbers of years.
Now it is true, and remains true, that ICANN denies third party beneficiary rights to registrants. Thus domain name registrants have no legal standing to compel TLD operators to meet existing ICANN established standards of operational quality. That is something that would be very valuable and would be easy to put into place but which ICANN has resisted for its entire existence. If anything should be fixed, it is that.
The question should be: "How much larger do we want ICANN's already large footprint to become?"
ICANN's regulatory footprint is already large and heavy.
ICANN required TLD applicants to set aside a full three years of operating costs - that was something I have not seen in any other area of business, even businesses that involve human health and safety. That cost was an enormous burden to applicants, and prevented many people and groups to refrain from even bothering to apply for a TLD. Isn't three years of funded operations "stable"? Should it be ten years, fifty years, a century?
And ICANN already requires the new TLD operators to have hired backup operators on hot standby. That added no small amount of initial cost and creates a significant operational overhead cost.
Much of what is being proposed strikes me as a revival of centralized five- year style planning, but this time for the internet. I can't say that that kind of centralized planning has had a great history of success. And success is particularly unlikely for something that is so rapidly changing and evolving as the internet.
I remember back in the early 1970's when we were playing with packet switched networks that the telephone companies were raising the roofs claiming that we were playing with fire, that we would destroy the wonder- of-the-world which was the national and international telephone network. They were right; we did, eventually. But it was not the economic disaster that was predicted.
ICANN can not be, and ought not to be, a guarantor of anything more than the technical quality of upper tier DNS operations. To do more risks strangling the golden goose of the internet or, more likely, sending the goose elsewhere.
The example of VW's cheating on emissions was raised as some sort of analogy to ICANN. I do not see that analogy. In the VW case, express statements were made to governments and buyers that vehicles would meet certain emission, power, and mileage numbers. Explicit promises to buyers were knowingly and intentionally broken - or in the words of the law, there was a misstatement of material facts upon which people relied to their detriment - in a word, fraud. In most places fraud is unlawful and those harmed can bring actions to recover their losses. And when really bad, fraud can rise to the criminal level and those responsible be punished.
No such promises are made by either ICANN nor TLD sellers beyond that TLD operations will meet certain minimum ICANN established requirements. And no one has said that those requirements are not being met.
ICANN's own long term requirement for many TLDs that domain names registrations be limited to no more than ten years undercuts arguments that domain name buyers some how believe that acquisition of domain names is something with permanency similar to a common law fee simple absolute right in real property. Even the word "registration" rather than "purchase" tends to suggest impermanence.
I believe that some of the new TLD offerings did make it part of their business plans to provide very long term guarantees. But if I remember correctly, those offerings were orders of magnitude more expensive per year than the more routine TLD offerings. In other words, consumers have options to purchase long term guarantees by choosing those TLDs that make such warranties.
If one pushes ICANN to be a consumer protection agency than domain name prices will be forced to significantly rise. Consider how much it would cost to acquire an business continuation insurance policy. The actuaries will crank the numbers in order to maintain 100% continuity for an indefinite period in the face of even unforeseeable risks and come up with a whopping dollar number that will strangle DNS innovation or drive people to do what has always been possible but always been dismissed because the existing system runs very well: competing DNS systems outside of the ICANN realm.
But if one looks at an even longer time scale - say ten years - it is becoming very clear that DNS names - which includes all TLDs - are slowly submerging to become internal internet machinery and not really of much interest to users. Things like Facebook and Twitter handles and URL's (which don't need to contain domain names at all) are becoming the names and addresses of the internet. In that future *all* TLDs are at risk of loosing revenue streams.
ICANN is already bloated to the degree that one fears that it is at risk from just one thin wafer (that's a Monty Python reference). There is not much that is funny when one begins to compare ICANN's staff size and budgets to that of the ITU (especially if one plots the growth of those numbers of each body over time and asks "when will they intersect?")
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
In short, consumers' interests must be protected, but only under solid technical and economic conditions, and within ICANN's capacity. Kaili Kan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com> To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
On 12/9/15 11:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 17:56, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
More generally, TLD policy should protect the Registrant. Apparently that is not part of the new gTLD deal. Or is it? To an extent. ... I very much agree with Avri's positions here.
ICANN was not constructed to be a consumer protection agency. It was constructed to assure stability - in fact in the beginning the word "technical" was always pre-pended to "stability". Stability is not permanency. A DNS TLD is stable if it doesn't wobble within time frames measured in weeks and months. But "stability" of anything related to the internet does not extend to terms measured by unbounded numbers of years.
Now it is true, and remains true, that ICANN denies third party beneficiary rights to registrants. Thus domain name registrants have no legal standing to compel TLD operators to meet existing ICANN established standards of operational quality. That is something that would be very valuable and would be easy to put into place but which ICANN has resisted for its entire existence. If anything should be fixed, it is that.
The question should be: "How much larger do we want ICANN's already large footprint to become?"
ICANN's regulatory footprint is already large and heavy.
ICANN required TLD applicants to set aside a full three years of operating costs - that was something I have not seen in any other area of business, even businesses that involve human health and safety. That cost was an enormous burden to applicants, and prevented many people and groups to refrain from even bothering to apply for a TLD. Isn't three years of funded operations "stable"? Should it be ten years, fifty years, a century?
And ICANN already requires the new TLD operators to have hired backup operators on hot standby. That added no small amount of initial cost and creates a significant operational overhead cost.
Much of what is being proposed strikes me as a revival of centralized five-year style planning, but this time for the internet. I can't say that that kind of centralized planning has had a great history of success. And success is particularly unlikely for something that is so rapidly changing and evolving as the internet.
I remember back in the early 1970's when we were playing with packet switched networks that the telephone companies were raising the roofs claiming that we were playing with fire, that we would destroy the wonder-of-the-world which was the national and international telephone network. They were right; we did, eventually. But it was not the economic disaster that was predicted.
ICANN can not be, and ought not to be, a guarantor of anything more than the technical quality of upper tier DNS operations. To do more risks strangling the golden goose of the internet or, more likely, sending the goose elsewhere.
The example of VW's cheating on emissions was raised as some sort of analogy to ICANN. I do not see that analogy. In the VW case, express statements were made to governments and buyers that vehicles would meet certain emission, power, and mileage numbers. Explicit promises to buyers were knowingly and intentionally broken - or in the words of the law, there was a misstatement of material facts upon which people relied to their detriment - in a word, fraud. In most places fraud is unlawful and those harmed can bring actions to recover their losses. And when really bad, fraud can rise to the criminal level and those responsible be punished.
No such promises are made by either ICANN nor TLD sellers beyond that TLD operations will meet certain minimum ICANN established requirements. And no one has said that those requirements are not being met.
ICANN's own long term requirement for many TLDs that domain names registrations be limited to no more than ten years undercuts arguments that domain name buyers some how believe that acquisition of domain names is something with permanency similar to a common law fee simple absolute right in real property. Even the word "registration" rather than "purchase" tends to suggest impermanence.
I believe that some of the new TLD offerings did make it part of their business plans to provide very long term guarantees. But if I remember correctly, those offerings were orders of magnitude more expensive per year than the more routine TLD offerings. In other words, consumers have options to purchase long term guarantees by choosing those TLDs that make such warranties.
If one pushes ICANN to be a consumer protection agency than domain name prices will be forced to significantly rise. Consider how much it would cost to acquire an business continuation insurance policy. The actuaries will crank the numbers in order to maintain 100% continuity for an indefinite period in the face of even unforeseeable risks and come up with a whopping dollar number that will strangle DNS innovation or drive people to do what has always been possible but always been dismissed because the existing system runs very well: competing DNS systems outside of the ICANN realm.
But if one looks at an even longer time scale - say ten years - it is becoming very clear that DNS names - which includes all TLDs - are slowly submerging to become internal internet machinery and not really of much interest to users. Things like Facebook and Twitter handles and URL's (which don't need to contain domain names at all) are becoming the names and addresses of the internet. In that future *all* TLDs are at risk of loosing revenue streams.
ICANN is already bloated to the degree that one fears that it is at risk from just one thin wafer (that's a Monty Python reference). There is not much that is funny when one begins to compare ICANN's staff size and budgets to that of the ITU (especially if one plots the growth of those numbers of each body over time and asks "when will they intersect?")
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello all, let me chime in on this issue. On 09/12/2015 22:17, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming? The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of which were disregarded)? Yes, it did. And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some survive and some don't. This is the way it should be with products.
Registry failure was of course anticipated and ICANN has a complex set of wheels that come in motion when that happens, as described in the Registry Accreditation Agreement: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved... There are numerous places in the Agreement that deal with Registry failure, transfer of data, escrow etc. So the noise that this security firm is much ago about nothing. Second, some in the thread are saying that ICANN should do nothing at all to ensure business continuity. Actually all of the above measures were ingrained in the Registry Agreement in order to provide continuity in the resolution of a registered domain name, under any generic Top Level Domain. They were defined as part of ICANN's DNA through the Affirmation of Commitments which ICANN as signed with NTIA: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-... The pertinent section is section 9.2, preserving security, stability and resiliency. Read this document again in detail. A lot of what ICANN does and how it does it is actually mandated here. Kindest regards, Olivier
Olivier, further: provisions for registry failure were considered since the "first round" of new gTLDs, so they are part of ICANN's DNA by now. At that time the mindset change was significant: from "immanent", structural gTLDs to the admission that some of them would be run as businesses and be able to succeed and fail in a market. But then, even countries could appear and disappear and so their TLDs. Witness .yu and .su for deprecation, .me or .ps for creation. Re "something must be done", what is so special about consumers of domain names that is totally inexistent in consumer behavior and rights? Solutions - if there is indeed a problem - should be mapped from a successful, global consumers union... if you can find one. When you try to do that you will be setting foot on a well-trodden road. I think this was already discussed in the 1990's. I hope someone can better identify the problem and a solution that has eluded us for almost two decades now (or realizes there isn't that much that can be done, and that ICANN's mechanisms, very much shaped by users' concerns, already cover a lot of the intersection between what can be desired and what can be done. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl@gih.com] Enviado el: jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2015 08:48 Hasta: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Hello all, let me chime in on this issue. On 09/12/2015 22:17, Avri Doria wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming? The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of which were disregarded)? Yes, it did. And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some survive and some don't. This is the way it should be with products.
Registry failure was of course anticipated and ICANN has a complex set of wheels that come in motion when that happens, as described in the Registry Accreditation Agreement: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved... There are numerous places in the Agreement that deal with Registry failure, transfer of data, escrow etc. So the noise that this security firm is much ago about nothing. Second, some in the thread are saying that ICANN should do nothing at all to ensure business continuity. Actually all of the above measures were ingrained in the Registry Agreement in order to provide continuity in the resolution of a registered domain name, under any generic Top Level Domain. They were defined as part of ICANN's DNA through the Affirmation of Commitments which ICANN as signed with NTIA: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-... The pertinent section is section 9.2, preserving security, stability and resiliency. Read this document again in detail. A lot of what ICANN does and how it does it is actually mandated here. 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
I do not understand this wringing of hands over the fact that some of the flowers that bloom die.
Havinng looked at about 1/3 of the applications, a lot of the new gTLDs had plans that can be summarized as create .FOOBAR TLD for the foobar community, get millions of registrations, PROFITS!!! They waxed lyrical about the communities they'd serve with no indication of why the members of the alleged community would want to buy a .FOOBAR for $30 rather than .COM or ccTLD for $15, if they even wanted to buy a domain name at all. Nearly all of the new TLDs are operated by about six large existing registries, so when new TLDs fail, the likely result is that the operator will take it over and run it directly so long as it has enough registrants to pay its ongoing costs. If it doesn't, the number of people affected is small, and they'll have a year or so to move somewhere else. One vanity TLD, .DOOSAN, has already decided to shut down but since they never put any names in it, that doesn't affect anyone other than the stockholders who wasted half a million dollars on it. R's, John
On 12/10/2015 07:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Havinng looked at about 1/3 of the applications, a lot of the new gTLDs had plans that can be summarized as create .FOOBAR TLD for the foobar community, get millions of registrations, PROFITS!!!
I agree with you. Profits are nice to have, even essential. And I agree further that many of the new TLDs have very little that differentiates them from .com/.net/.org/ etc. (we know that for technical reasons that we do want the DNS tree to spread wider near the top, but that's not relevant to this topic.) ICANN's rules have made real innovation in names very difficult, if not impossible. ICANN is like Henry Ford and his comment that his customers can order any color they want, as long as it is black. For example, consider this TLD offering that would be impossible under ICANN rules, but which in no way would violate any written and broadly practiced internet technical standard: http://cavebear.com/eweregistry/ --karl--
In a funny kinda way, Avri's position is the practical outcome. Save and except we should endeavour to add meaningful protections for the poor slobs caught in the net. Let me explain. We say we are for a free market. But those of us who would have been informed by practical experience know the market is not always a sage in operation. So we expect, at minimum, some baseline protections in place to mediate adverse consumer impact. Especially in instant case where the domain name market is and remains a privileged space, booted largely on mercantilist economic precepts; some vital resource is expropriated and a license is granted to exploit one corner of the market for this resource by paying an exclusionary license fee. Like it or not, there is a duty of care imposed on the one granting the license. And that duty devolves to minimizing harm from market interactions originating from the licensee. ICANN gives and ICANN receives. So we have in place data escrow and archiving concordats, registry failover processes and even commercial successor planning frameworks in place. All good. But not sufficient. For these are generally tacking moreso to the operational stability and reliability of the DNS, with consumer protection a poor second, if at all a thought. Sure, you simply cannot protect every consumer from every fool choice/action they freely take. But we expect some will be taken in blissful ignorance. So as the regulator, I feel ICANN is duty-bound to full disclosure and dissemination of all the relevant known caveats; kind of a master 'caveat emptor' if you will. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
On 09-Dec-15 12:38, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20151204_security_firm_predicts_unprecedented_...
Good evening. Did the WG see this coming?
The gTLD group that made the current set of recommendations (many of which were disregarded)? Yes, it did. And it realized that as with all products people come to rely on, some survive and some don't. This is the way it should be with products.
I hated it when the store I bought most of my clothing came from shut down. But I am learning to cope with it. Found another store, in fact more than one.
Likewise both people and even businesses can learn to cope. Web sites can be moved, what's the big deal as long as there is time to take care of it?
The safe bet will still be an incumbent, those who can tolerate more risk will have greater choice. In time there will be other successful registries, especially those from the portfolio applicants who can afford to carry an unsuccessful name, and those will be added to the list of available names for people who cannot tolerate risk.
I do not understand this wringing of hands over the fact that some of the flowers that bloom die. Everything is temporary, we should be used to it. And some of those names will be picked up by those registries who have a better idea for how to market them. I think EBERO was good idea to give TLDs that might be picked up a chance and to give people time to move if not. But expectations of eternal availability for TLDs seems silly to me.
Do you think that guarantees should be available for any subsequent TLDs?
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (14)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Kan Kaili -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Subrenat, Jean-Jacques -
Vanda Scartezini