my submissions to new gTLD statement
greetings... attached are two draft statements for the ALAC response to the new gTLD workbook and process. I have given up trying to upload these to the wiki, thought I knew how but I guess I don't. I will be leaving town for a few days' vacation returning the evening of Weds. Jan. 7. I could possibly answer questions then but will not really be available between now and then. Unless I am mistaken,though, there have been no submissions on new gTLDs since the last phone conference). Attached are two documents: some suggested overview statements that ALAC might want to make, and then a line-by-line specific document, which generally though not completely follows the guide that was sent around. In it I addres modules 2, 3 and 4 only, with "consumer issues" only. These were written in conjunction with or in mind of some of the NCUC's statements and the two U.S. government letters to ICANN in December. Some of the elements really need some discussion! Like auctions and so forth. I'm not sure everyone on ALAC will be comfortable with some of these statements but here they are from my perspective as a member of NA RALO. I hope also that we have taken note of the fairly big controversy the new gTLD application has created, though this was perhaps not a surprise. Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:55 AM To: gtld-wg-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Cc: Atlarge Staff Subject: Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook Greetings. Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny: "Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application. So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in. In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs. International Olympic Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf Registry Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html Unicode Technical Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting). Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement. Thanks Beau Brendler ** 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.
Beau, Thank you for your effort in producing this document. My concerns: While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable, I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board. 1. Are we asking that the new gTLD process be stopped until certain conditions are met? If so, what are those conditions? Are we asking for a delay? If so, for how long? 2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner? If so, do we have any concerns regarding the IDN rollout that should be brought forward at this time? 3. Are we asking that the Guidebook be tweaked and re-issued, or are we of the view that no Guidebook work should continue until the Economic Study is released and evaluated? Obviously I have a longer list of questions, but in general terms if you could spell out the action that you want the board to take, it would be easier to respond to this document. Thanks, Danny --- On Sat, 1/3/09, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 5:21 PM greetings...
attached are two draft statements for the ALAC response to the new gTLD workbook and process.
I have given up trying to upload these to the wiki, thought I knew how but I guess I don't.
I will be leaving town for a few days' vacation returning the evening of Weds. Jan. 7. I could possibly answer questions then but will not really be available between now and then. Unless I am mistaken,though, there have been no submissions on new gTLDs since the last phone conference).
Attached are two documents: some suggested overview statements that ALAC might want to make, and then a line-by-line specific document, which generally though not completely follows the guide that was sent around. In it I addres modules 2, 3 and 4 only, with "consumer issues" only. These were written in conjunction with or in mind of some of the NCUC's statements and the two U.S. government letters to ICANN in December.
Some of the elements really need some discussion! Like auctions and so forth. I'm not sure everyone on ALAC will be comfortable with some of these statements but here they are from my perspective as a member of NA RALO.
I hope also that we have taken note of the fairly big controversy the new gTLD application has created, though this was perhaps not a surprise.
Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:55 AM To: gtld-wg-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Cc: Atlarge Staff Subject: Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook
Greetings.
Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny:
"Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application.
So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in.
In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs.
International Olympic Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf Registry Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html Unicode Technical Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html
After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting).
Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement.
Thanks
Beau Brendler
** 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....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
Thank you for your effort in producing this document.
Yes, it's a good start.
While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable, I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board.
My advice would be to stop the new gTLD process until: a) the promised Economic Study is released and evaluated b) ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage *all* of the requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts, and develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts.
2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner?
I realize that there is a lot of pressure from the non-anglophone world for IDN TLDs, but would rather that they delay IDN TLDs until at least the compliance is in place. I suspect the economic study is more relevant to IDN TLDs than to ASCII ones since there's likely too be close synonyms among names in different languages. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
I share John L's concerns and agree that the official posture should be to stop the process until the elements hereunder are addressed. Carlton On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Thank you for your effort in producing this document.
Yes, it's a good start.
While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable,
I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board.
My advice would be to stop the new gTLD process until:
a) the promised Economic Study is released and evaluated
b) ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage *all* of the requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts, and develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts.
2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN
ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner?
I realize that there is a lot of pressure from the non-anglophone world for IDN TLDs, but would rather that they delay IDN TLDs until at least the compliance is in place. I suspect the economic study is more relevant to IDN TLDs than to ASCII ones since there's likely too be close synonyms among names in different languages.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga. For example, the DotBerlin folks have raised €1 million to cover their direct and indirect costs for submitting an application. They and their investors now expect to be able to recover their investment. Money's tight, especially in the current economic context. I see some potential collateral damage, with new entrants throwing the towel, leaving the stage free for incumbents to apply for all the strings their deep pockets can afford. The latter have only marginal indirect costs. They can afford to wait. By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents. Patrick On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:32:38 -0500, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
I share John L's concerns and agree that the official posture should be to stop the process until the elements hereunder are addressed.
Carlton
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Thank you for your effort in producing this document.
Yes, it's a good start.
While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable,
I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board.
My advice would be to stop the new gTLD process until:
a) the promised Economic Study is released and evaluated
b) ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage *all* of the requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts, and develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts.
2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN
ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner?
I realize that there is a lot of pressure from the non-anglophone world for IDN TLDs, but would rather that they delay IDN TLDs until at least the compliance is in place. I suspect the economic study is more relevant to IDN TLDs than to ASCII ones since there's likely too be close synonyms among names in different languages.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
_______________________________________________ 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
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga.
I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have not been started. Maybe I am mistaken?
For example, the DotBerlin folks have raised â¬1 million to cover their direct and indirect costs for submitting an application. They and their investors now expect to be able to recover their investment. Money's tight, especially in the current economic context. So, these people spent lots of money before the process for this have been finalized? Who should be responsible for that?
I see some potential collateral damage, with new entrants throwing the towel, leaving the stage free for incumbents to apply for all the strings their deep pockets can afford. The latter have only marginal indirect costs. They can afford to wait.
By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents.
What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a process that has not been finalized? I'd put my vote on suspending the process until it is fixed.
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:02 -0800 (PST), "Bill Silverstein" <icann-list@sorehands.com> wrote:
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga.
I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have not been started. Maybe I am mistaken?
As you may know, this whole new gTLD process started many years ago. There have been tons of documents, meetings, etc to finally come up with this Applicant's guide. Many potential new entrants participated in the whole process over the last 3 years. This does have a cost. Suggesting that the process has not started because the final RFP is not officially published is dismissing one of the most important parts of the work, which is the preparation of the RFP.
By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents.
What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a process that has not been finalized?
I think it is the best interest of the public to have alternatives to the incumbent registry operators. Patrick
Good morning: I agree generally with the line that Patrick has outlined in his last two postings. I have been associated with the process of creating new TLDs for more than ten years, and have come to the conclusion that the time and cost of the preparatory work - voluntary or otherwise - should not be written off at the final stage. There will indeed be some frivolous applications and some mistakes, which the ICANN selection process should be designed to minimise. That being said, from a global point of view, I would still urge ALAC to give priority to IDN TLDs, for cultural and linguistic environments which are presently not served atall by the DNS. Regards to you all, and best wishes for 2009 Christopher Wilkinson. ---------------------------- Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:02 -0800 (PST), "Bill Silverstein" <icann-list@sorehands.com> wrote:
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga.
I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have not been started. Maybe I am mistaken?
As you may know, this whole new gTLD process started many years ago. There have been tons of documents, meetings, etc to finally come up with this Applicant's guide. Many potential new entrants participated in the whole process over the last 3 years. This does have a cost. Suggesting that the process has not started because the final RFP is not officially published is dismissing one of the most important parts of the work, which is the preparation of the RFP.
By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents.
What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a process that has not been finalized?
I think it is the best interest of the public to have alternatives to the incumbent registry operators.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I also agree with Patrick and with Christopher. Particularly about the importance of not delaying IDNs any further. Consistency with past ALAC statements about new gTLDs would also be helpful. Adam At 10:10 AM +0100 1/8/09, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Good morning:
I agree generally with the line that Patrick has outlined in his last two postings. I have been associated with the process of creating new TLDs for more than ten years, and have come to the conclusion that the time and cost of the preparatory work - voluntary or otherwise - should not be written off at the final stage.
There will indeed be some frivolous applications and some mistakes, which the ICANN selection process should be designed to minimise.
That being said, from a global point of view, I would still urge ALAC to give priority to IDN TLDs, for cultural and linguistic environments which are presently not served atall by the DNS.
Regards to you all, and best wishes for 2009
Christopher Wilkinson.
----------------------------
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:02 -0800 (PST), "Bill Silverstein" <icann-list@sorehands.com> wrote:
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga.
I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have not been started. Maybe I am mistaken?
As you may know, this whole new gTLD process started many years ago. There have been tons of documents, meetings, etc to finally come up with this Applicant's guide. Many potential new entrants participated in the whole process over the last 3 years. This does have a cost. Suggesting that the process has not started because the final RFP is not officially published is dismissing one of the most important parts of the work, which is the preparation of the RFP.
By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents.
What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a process that has not been finalized?
I think it is the best interest of the public to have alternatives to the incumbent registry operators. Patrick
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I fully agree with Patrick. Several smaller organisations invested time and money to get ready for the first run of the new GTLDs. Postponing the process for a longer time would be suicide for them. Nevertheless, accepting the actual proposal would also be disastrous and would only help the rich ones. A good balance between for lying documents and the many comments on the table is not something we can accomplish within a few weeks, say even a month or 2. It looks like the fees, at least that's my personal opinion, is the biggest hurdle and maybe a split into 2 basic approaches : one group being small organisations with maximum 100.000 domain names and a second group above that limit (just an example of possible solution). However, I'm still working on gathering all comments on this topic, some delay due to a cold followed by flu ... a better start of 2009 I could not find :-( See you all soon Rudi Vansnick Patrick Vande Walle schreef:
While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a long time in this saga. For example, the DotBerlin folks have raised €1 million to cover their direct and indirect costs for submitting an application. They and their investors now expect to be able to recover their investment. Money's tight, especially in the current economic context.
I see some potential collateral damage, with new entrants throwing the towel, leaving the stage free for incumbents to apply for all the strings their deep pockets can afford. The latter have only marginal indirect costs. They can afford to wait.
By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents.
Patrick
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:32:38 -0500, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> wrote:
I share John L's concerns and agree that the official posture should be
to
stop the process until the elements hereunder are addressed.
Carlton
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Thank you for your effort in producing this document.
Yes, it's a good start.
While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable,
I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board.
My advice would be to stop the new gTLD process until:
a) the promised Economic Study is released and evaluated
b) ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage *all* of the requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts, and develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts.
2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN
ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner?
I realize that there is a lot of pressure from the non-anglophone world for IDN TLDs, but would rather that they delay IDN TLDs until at least the compliance is in place. I suspect the economic study is more relevant
to
IDN TLDs than to ASCII ones since there's likely too be close synonyms among names in different languages.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com,
ex-Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1871 - Release Date: 1/01/2009 17:01
still on vacation, but: stop the process until certain conditions are met, basically, what's spelled out in the letters from the DOC and DOJ. Economic analysis; safety, security and stability concerns; substantial demonstration of capacity to handle new gTLDs. I can provide more detail on Friday though I suspect that will be too late plus, I would like to hear what the ALAC thinks we should do -- there has not been much response to this other than from you, John, Bill, and a few trolls. I would have thought the Europeans would have strong objections to even suggesting halting the new gTLD process ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:08 AM To: At-Large Worldwide; gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement Beau, Thank you for your effort in producing this document. My concerns: While the Statement makes clear that which users find to be objectionable, I am having trouble finding the clear advice that we seek to offer to the Board. 1. Are we asking that the new gTLD process be stopped until certain conditions are met? If so, what are those conditions? Are we asking for a delay? If so, for how long? 2. Are we asking that we proceed with the rollout of IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs while we put generic TLDs on the back burner? If so, do we have any concerns regarding the IDN rollout that should be brought forward at this time? 3. Are we asking that the Guidebook be tweaked and re-issued, or are we of the view that no Guidebook work should continue until the Economic Study is released and evaluated? Obviously I have a longer list of questions, but in general terms if you could spell out the action that you want the board to take, it would be easier to respond to this document. Thanks, Danny --- On Sat, 1/3/09, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 5:21 PM greetings...
attached are two draft statements for the ALAC response to the new gTLD workbook and process.
I have given up trying to upload these to the wiki, thought I knew how but I guess I don't.
I will be leaving town for a few days' vacation returning the evening of Weds. Jan. 7. I could possibly answer questions then but will not really be available between now and then. Unless I am mistaken,though, there have been no submissions on new gTLDs since the last phone conference).
Attached are two documents: some suggested overview statements that ALAC might want to make, and then a line-by-line specific document, which generally though not completely follows the guide that was sent around. In it I addres modules 2, 3 and 4 only, with "consumer issues" only. These were written in conjunction with or in mind of some of the NCUC's statements and the two U.S. government letters to ICANN in December.
Some of the elements really need some discussion! Like auctions and so forth. I'm not sure everyone on ALAC will be comfortable with some of these statements but here they are from my perspective as a member of NA RALO.
I hope also that we have taken note of the fairly big controversy the new gTLD application has created, though this was perhaps not a surprise.
Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:55 AM To: gtld-wg-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Cc: Atlarge Staff Subject: Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook
Greetings.
Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny:
"Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application.
So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in.
In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs.
International Olympic Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf Registry Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html Unicode Technical Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html
After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting).
Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement.
Thanks
Beau Brendler
** 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....
Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy
*** 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.
For what's it's worth, I concur with this assessment and look forward to having more details on the preconditions articulated. Danny --- On Wed, 1/7/09, Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> wrote:
From: Brendler, Beau <Brenbe@consumer.org> Subject: RE: [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement To: "dannyyounger@yahoo.com" <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 1:11 PM still on vacation, but: stop the process until certain conditions are met, basically, what's spelled out in the letters from the DOC and DOJ. Economic analysis; safety, security and stability concerns; substantial demonstration of capacity to handle new gTLDs.
I can provide more detail on Friday though I suspect that will be too late
plus, I would like to hear what the ALAC thinks we should do -- there has not been much response to this other than from you, John, Bill, and a few trolls. I would have thought the Europeans would have strong objections to even suggesting halting the new gTLD process ________________________________________
participants (9)
-
Adam Peake -
Bill Silverstein -
Brendler, Beau -
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Danny Younger -
John L -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Rudi Vansnick