Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics
I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons. avri Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on perspective:
- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood enough to take advantage of the opportunity;
- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, enables those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide sensibilities.
- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public interest had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public interest community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So naturally, it never stood a chance.
- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive that ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW ... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of internet content and services.
The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's mandate. The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. The third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. And the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The three support applications are particularly disappointing in light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
Alan
At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
Insofar as this frustration is shared by ALAC and NCSG and probably both would like to see the questions posed clearly and responded to in Prague, perhaps it'd be useful to discuss this at our Monday meeting with an eye toward some joint action? Bill On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons.
avri
Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on perspective:
- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood enough to take advantage of the opportunity;
- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, enables those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide sensibilities.
- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public interest had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public interest community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So naturally, it never stood a chance.
- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive that ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW ... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of internet content and services.
The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's mandate. The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. The third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. And the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The three support applications are particularly disappointing in light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
Alan
At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________ 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
The ALAC has been mulling over a few tidbits, one or so of which could be used to amplify this. I'm for further exploration towards maybe joint action. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch>wrote:
Insofar as this frustration is shared by ALAC and NCSG and probably both would like to see the questions posed clearly and responded to in Prague, perhaps it'd be useful to discuss this at our Monday meeting with an eye toward some joint action?
Bill
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons.
avri
Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on perspective:
- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood enough to take advantage of the opportunity;
- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, enables those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide sensibilities.
- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public interest had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public interest community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So naturally, it never stood a chance.
- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive that ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW ... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of internet content and services.
The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's mandate. The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. The third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. And the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The three support applications are particularly disappointing in light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
Alan
At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________ 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. But I would like to consider -- even before meeting -- what possible outcomes would be. A joint statement merely deploring the situation would have little value in actually affecting anything. I'd like to focus on how to effect change going forward. - Evan On 18 June 2012 11:21, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The ALAC has been mulling over a few tidbits, one or so of which could be used to amplify this.
I'm for further exploration towards maybe joint action.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch
wrote:
Insofar as this frustration is shared by ALAC and NCSG and probably both would like to see the questions posed clearly and responded to in Prague, perhaps it'd be useful to discuss this at our Monday meeting with an eye toward some joint action?
Bill
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons.
avri
Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on perspective:
- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood enough to take advantage of the opportunity;
- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, enables those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide sensibilities.
- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public interest had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public interest community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So naturally, it never stood a chance.
- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive that ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW ... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of internet content and services.
The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's mandate. The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. The third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. And the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The three support applications are particularly disappointing in light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
Alan
At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
+1 William and Carlton! best Foo On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
The ALAC has been mulling over a few tidbits, one or so of which could be used to amplify this.
I'm for further exploration towards maybe joint action.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch>wrote:
Insofar as this frustration is shared by ALAC and NCSG and probably both would like to see the questions posed clearly and responded to in Prague, perhaps it'd be useful to discuss this at our Monday meeting with an eye toward some joint action?
Bill
On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons.
avri
Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on perspective:
- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood enough to take advantage of the opportunity;
- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit, enables those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide sensibilities.
- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public interest had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public interest community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So naturally, it never stood a chance.
- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive that ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW ... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of internet content and services.
The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's mandate. The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate. The third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate. And the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive. On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The three support applications are particularly disappointing in light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
Alan
At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications. And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
Insofar as this frustration is shared by ALAC and NCSG and probably both would like to see the questions posed clearly and responded to in Prague, perhaps it'd be useful to discuss this at our Monday meeting with an eye toward some joint action?
It's far too late to do anything meaningful within ICANN about the gTLD greed grab. $350 million speaks far louder than any of us could. I still have some home for legal action by large US businesses that will be adversely affected. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
John R. Levine [2012-06-18 16:58]:
It's far too late to do anything meaningful within ICANN about the gTLD greed grab. $350 million speaks far louder than any of us could.
I still have some home for legal action by large US businesses that will be adversely affected.
I'm curious: What would the grounds be? ~ Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash · Programme Manager · Centre for Internet and Society @pranesh_prakash · PGP ID 0x1D5C5F07 · http://cis-india.org
I still have some home for legal action by large US businesses that will be adversely affected.
I'm curious: What would the grounds be?
ICANN is a public charity that is required to act in the public interest. Adding thousands of TLDs, most of which benefit only large businesses, and which will cause a variety of harm to other businesses that didn't pony up the $200K, is not in the public interest. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fouad Bajwa -
John R. Levine -
Pranesh Prakash -
William Drake