my submissions to new gTLD statement
Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse.
We need to make a statement of some sort -- it may already be too late, though my guess is that the rather unenthusiastic reception ICANN has received so far makes the concern less acute. That said, our deadline has come and gone. May I ask for guidance from staff to coordinate? And as for process? Are we to put the statement as written up for a vote? Or make it simple and just send up a line of advice to the board (we can cite the other documents as a backup rationale)? Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen in reviewing recent notes, mostly from John): The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD application and implementation process until the following steps are taken: * The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and evaluated. * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community. * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them. May I suggest to the ALAC ex com or whomever the appropriate authority is, to put this statement up for a vote from the ALAC as soon as possible? Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Thanks Beau for your push on that subject. I would like to add one idea: With less staff and less money Icann was able to introduce 7 and then 6 new gTLDs. Maybe a more pragmatic way could be explored. Thanks Sébastien Bachollet Président Isoc France sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr
-----Message d'origine----- De : gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:gtld-wg- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Brendler, Beau Envoyé : vendredi 9 janvier 2009 18:22 À : At-Large Worldwide; gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc : Matthias; Heidi Ullrich; At-Large Staff; NA Discuss Objet : [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
We need to make a statement of some sort -- it may already be too late, though my guess is that the rather unenthusiastic reception ICANN has received so far makes the concern less acute. That said, our deadline has come and gone.
May I ask for guidance from staff to coordinate? And as for process? Are we to put the statement as written up for a vote? Or make it simple and just send up a line of advice to the board (we can cite the other documents as a backup rationale)?
Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen in reviewing recent notes, mostly from John):
The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD application and implementation process until the following steps are taken:
* The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and evaluated. * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community. * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them.
May I suggest to the ALAC ex com or whomever the appropriate authority is, to put this statement up for a vote from the ALAC as soon as possible?
Beau Brendler
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement
Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents."
Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest.
Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money.
But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest.
The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge- lists.icann.org
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso- liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
Danny Younger wrote, On 8/1/09 15:36:
Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents."
Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest.
My "conflict of interest", as you say, is pretty limited right now. It is worth no more than USD20/yr for a domain name. I have been working too long in this ICANN environment to know better.
But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest.
Indeed. As I mentioned earlier, more alternatives to the traditional TLDs would be allow the customers more choice and more competition. Delaying further would only help the incumbents maintain there market share and prevent competition. From a strictly consumer-oriented point of view, this is not my definition of a healthy marketplace. Patrick
participants (4)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Sébastien Bachollet