Re: [At-Large] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Indeed Adam => the words "We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs.... .... ... ." from our Mexico 2009 At-Large Summit Declaration and similar words have integral in ALAC Statements, Notes, Interventions, Reports Comments (to various Calls for Public Comments and in other Fora) over and over again since Interim ALAC days in 2003 => a point perhaps also worth noting by the ALAC Members as they debate this "issue" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 19 December 2011 22:23, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
Evan,
You seem to be of the opinion that the At Large's Mexico statement's pretty important, the section of the Mexico Declaration addressing new gTLD opens with the following:
"We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs. In fact, we believe that a number of components of the proposed policy present unnecessary barriers to entry for the broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants."
Seems you are coming close to re-writing history. The At Large statement supported the "broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants". Your final "whereas" clause not justified. The Mexico document also refers to "substantial pent-up demand for new gTLDs" and "We do NOT believe in an interim third round with an arbitrarily limited number of applications as a "trial run"" (emphasis in the original). This also seems contrary to your penultimate whereas clause.
Many of the issues mentioned in the Mexico declaration have been addressed, perhaps not to everyone's full satisfaction, but there's been a lot of work done, very publicly with ALAC's participation (for example ALAC commented on the GAC scorecard, how did that work out? GAC got about 80/90%, ALAC?) However, importantly the issue of fees has not been well addressed. Might also mention a less than perfect outreach process in this regard (Mike Silber's comments in Dakar helpful.)
Perhaps the third whereas about law enforcement could be split off as a separate statement, the At Large's views more fully explained and re-submitted as a separate statement?
Public interest. Please identify the specific public interest issues that must be addressed.
When is the ALAC's January call (can't see it on the calender), the application process opens on January 12th, in 23 days. After all the opportunities At Large has had to comment I think it would be a grave mistake to call for suspension of the new gTLD process.
Thanks,
Adam
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. _______________________________________________ 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 Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@gmail.com> wrote:
Indeed Adam => the words "We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs.... .... ... ." from our Mexico 2009 At-Large Summit Declaration and similar words have integral in ALAC Statements, Notes, Interventions, Reports Comments (to various Calls for Public Comments and in other Fora) over and over again since Interim ALAC days in 2003 => a point perhaps also worth noting by the ALAC Members as they debate this "issue"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)
On 19 December 2011 22:23, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
Evan,
You seem to be of the opinion that the At Large's Mexico statement's pretty important, the section of the Mexico Declaration addressing new gTLD opens with the following:
"We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs. In fact, we believe that a number of components of the proposed policy present unnecessary barriers to entry for the broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants."
Seems you are coming close to re-writing history. The At Large statement supported the "broadest possible variety of gTLD applicants". Your final "whereas" clause not justified. The Mexico document also refers to "substantial pent-up demand for new gTLDs" and "We do NOT believe in an interim third round with an arbitrarily limited number of applications as a "trial run"" (emphasis in the original). This also seems contrary to your penultimate whereas clause.
Many of the issues mentioned in the Mexico declaration have been addressed, perhaps not to everyone's full satisfaction, but there's been a lot of work done, very publicly with ALAC's participation (for example ALAC commented on the GAC scorecard, how did that work out? GAC got about 80/90%, ALAC?) However, importantly the issue of fees has not been well addressed. Might also mention a less than perfect outreach process in this regard (Mike Silber's comments in Dakar helpful.)
Perhaps the third whereas about law enforcement could be split off as a separate statement, the At Large's views more fully explained and re-submitted as a separate statement?
Public interest. Please identify the specific public interest issues that must be addressed.
When is the ALAC's January call (can't see it on the calender), the application process opens on January 12th, in 23 days. After all the opportunities At Large has had to comment I think it would be a grave mistake to call for suspension of the new gTLD process.
Thanks,
Adam
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
Please distribute this to the four RALO mailing lists where I do not have posting rights, and translate if possible.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. _______________________________________________ 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
Indeed Adam => the words "We agree with and support the expedient introduction of new gTLDs, especially those offering support for IDNs.... .... ... ." from our Mexico 2009 At-Large Summit Declaration and similar words have integral in ALAC Statements
Well, you know, we were wrong, and it's not too late to correct our position. Back in the 1990s, it seemed plausible that people might use TLDs as a diretory. Fifteen years later, we know that people use Google as an index, and that most users are only vaguely aware that there are TLDs other than .COM and perhaps their local ccTLD. There was a hypothesis that new TLDs would provide meaningful competition to .COM. Now we know that's not true either, and saying "competition" a thousand more times won't make it so. (For people in the US, it's not unlike the belief in some areas in competition in health care insurance.) We have a decade's worth of new TLDs. The only ASCII TLD that has come anywhere close to doing what it was supposed to do is .CAT, and its circumstances are unlikely to be repeated. It looks like the IDN ccTLDs are working more or less as they're supposed to, but asking for new ASCII TLDs or new generic TLDs is just stubbornness in the face of reality. For a preview of what new TLDs will really do, look at .XXX. I now have access to its zone file, and found that it has 7000 parked names, 7000 possibly live names, and 85,000 defensive registrations. What's the public interst in that? Why would .CANON or .MUSIC be any different? 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
On 19 December 2011 11:32, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Back in the 1990s, it seemed plausible that people might use TLDs as a diretory. Fifteen years later, we know that people use Google as an index, and that most users are only vaguely aware that there are TLDs other than .COM and perhaps their local ccTLD. There was a hypothesis that new TLDs would provide meaningful competition to .COM. Now we know that's not true either, and saying "competition" a thousand more times won't make it so.
Well said. It is conveniently glossed over that new gTLDs have negligible effect adding competition applicable to end users. For them, the choice of domain is made by their preferred content providers (as registrants), they themselves have no choice and the issue of competition between TLDs is moot. The end-user choice -- and the related competition and quite the hotbed of innovation -- is not really between TLDs, but rather whether to use domain names at all instead of history-aware search engines, mobile apps, URL shorteners and many other means to connect them to their preferred content sources and service providers. It looks like the IDN ccTLDs are working more or less as they're supposed
to, but asking for new ASCII TLDs or new generic TLDs is just stubbornness in the face of reality.
It's not stubbornness. There is too much money out there available from registry investors, speculators and defensive registrations to allow this to evolve naturally. - Evan
While geographic rather than generic, I find Edmon Chung's current presentation about the benefits of .asia quite convincing. . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlSJ8IZF5GY&list=PL66A04B1808AABF48&index=17&... On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:32 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
We have a decade's worth of new TLDs. The only ASCII TLD that has come anywhere close to doing what it was supposed to do is .CAT, and its circumstances are unlikely to be repeated. It looks like the IDN ccTLDs are working more or less as they're supposed to, but asking for new ASCII TLDs or new generic TLDs is just stubbornness in the face of reality.
--
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
While geographic rather than generic, I find Edmon Chung's current presentation about the benefits of .asia quite convincing.
There are about four billion people in Asia. There are about 195,000 domains in .ASIA. Perhaps the .005% of people in Asia who have registered a domain (actually less than that, once you account for multiple registrations and parking) think it's swell, but for the other 99.995%, it's utterly irrelevant. By comparison, there are over a million names in .JP and over 3 million in .CN. There's over 200,000 in .HK, more than in all of .ASIA. 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
1) I don't see why ubiquity is necessary 2) Did you actually watch the video? j On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
While geographic rather than generic, I find Edmon Chung's current presentation about the benefits of .asia quite convincing.
There are about four billion people in Asia. There are about 195,000 domains in .ASIA. Perhaps the .005% of people in Asia who have registered a domain (actually less than that, once you account for multiple registrations and parking) think it's swell, but for the other 99.995%, it's utterly irrelevant.
By comparison, there are over a million names in .JP and over 3 million in .CN. There's over 200,000 in .HK, more than in all of .ASIA.
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 _______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -
1) I don't see why ubiquity is necessary
Because the DNS is supposed to be managed for the benefit of the public. It's the same reason that .CANON and other single-registrant domains are a bad idea.
2) Did you actually watch the video?
No, I'd rather do arithmetic on verifiable facts. I also have to wonder about .ASIA's long term viability. If they have under 200K domains, since their registry fee is $10, their annual revenue is under $2M. They probably pay half of that to Afilias to manage the registry, and you can't pay much of a staff on under $1M/yr. R's, John
Hello, In response to many comments, on these lists and privately with colleagues, I have made substantial modifications to the motion which no longer calls for a stoppage but instead demands a staggered release. Here is the new version: WHEREAS - ICANN stakeholders representing general Internet end-users and sovereign states have had limited participation in the development of the gTLD program; - Most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration of February 2009 related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened; - Numerous complaints from sovereign states, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient; - The ICANN Board, without suitable rationale, has rejected the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund, even though this recommendation was actively supported by ICANN's three main public-interest communities (GAC, ALAC and NCSG) and actively opposed by no communities; - The absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct errors and assess unintended consequences in the proposed application round; - ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs; - The ALAC supports the introduction of gTLDs but is concerned about the ability of ICANN to protect the interests of Internet end-users as it scales to cope with a massive expansion; RESOLVED THAT - The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) request that the ICANN Board reconsider its rejection of the JAS-WG-recommended fund-independent cost reduction for support-eligible applicants as a matter of supporting the public interest and upholding ICANN's own multi-stakeholder process; - The ALAC conveys to the ICANN Board and community a deep concern about the possible harmful effect on Internet end-users of a single massive expansion of gTLDs; - The ALAC convey to the ICANN Board the urgency of phasing-in the introduction of new gTLDs gradually, releasing no more than 25 every three months and that each such release be comprised of at least 30% community, support-eligible or "geo-region" TLDs - The ICANN community must be enabled to monitor the progress of the releases, and that elements of the application process demonstrated to cause or allow harm or confusion to registrants, Internet end-users or conrtent/service providers must be correctable in an expeditious manner. It is available on the wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/Updated+ALAC+advice+on+gTL...
On 20 Dec 2011, at 22:56, John R. Levine wrote:
No, I'd rather do arithmetic on verifiable facts. I also have to wonder about .ASIA's long term viability. If they have under 200K domains, since their registry fee is $10, their annual revenue is under $2M. They probably pay half of that to Afilias to manage the registry, and you can't pay much of a staff on under $1M/yr.
Depends on how many staff you actually need .. If Afilias is handling all the technical stuff and the customer support, then why would DotAsia need loads of staff? Several of the registries have very small head counts Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 20 Dec 2011, at 22:56, John R. Levine wrote:
No, I'd rather do arithmetic on verifiable facts. I also have to wonder about .ASIA's long term viability. If they have under 200K domains, since their registry fee is $10, their annual revenue is under $2M. They probably pay half of that to Afilias to manage the registry, and you can't pay much of a staff on under $1M/yr.
Depends on how many staff you actually need ..
Looks like 13. Adam
If Afilias is handling all the technical stuff and the customer support, then why would DotAsia need loads of staff?
Several of the registries have very small head counts
Regards
Michele
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ 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
No, I'd rather do arithmetic on verifiable facts. I also have to wonder about .ASIA's long term viability. If they have under 200K domains, since their registry fee is $10, their annual revenue is under $2M. They probably pay half of that to Afilias to manage the registry, and you can't pay much of a staff on under $1M/yr.
Depends on how many staff you actually need ..
If Afilias is handling all the technical stuff and the customer support, then why would DotAsia need loads of staff?
It's everything that allegedly makes .ASIA different from a purely generic TLD like .INFO. As a specific example, who if anyone does compliance to check that registrants in .ASIA meet the registration requirements?
Several of the registries have very small head counts
Yes, we all know about .MUSEUM and .COOP, but I wouldn't hold them up as great examples. As I blogged a while ago, I was surprised to discover that I am .COOP's compliance department. R's, John
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline Morris -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight