EURO-Discuss

Download

euro-discuss@icann.org

February 2009

9 participants
12 discussions

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide
by Annette Muehlberg Feb. 4, 2009

Feb. 4, 2009

i am fine with it too. ;-) annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > Gesendet: 30.01.09 12:35:09 > An: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide > > I am fine with your proposed changes. Obviously your English drafting is > better than mine ;-) -Patrick > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:10:50 +0100, William Drake > <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > > > Thanks for clarifying the intention, the new first sentence seems apt > > (assuming this is in fact a strong majority view in Euralo, not many > > responses yet so I don't know). I wonder though if maybe it might > > also be good to tweak a bit more, perhaps like, > > > > "The EURALO does not support recent calls to delay the new gTLD process > > until additional studies are performed. We are particularly concerned > > about > > any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country > > code, > > and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. At the > > same time, > > we believe that ICANN needs to carefully examine and address the > > public interest concerns > > raised by ALAC and others. We very much hope that these can be fully > > addressed > > without slowing down dramatically the ongoing process." > > > > Reasons: > > > > *We believe that is stronger than we understand, which sounds like a > > concession to an unfortunate condition > > > > *Saying that ICANN needs respond to the concerns raised in the > > numerous comments submitted is pretty broad, and not all the comments > > are consistent with ALAC's concerns. For present purposes, wouldn't > > it be better to specify that we are asking that it's the public > > interest concerns of ALAC and others be addressed? (since I have one > > foot here and one in NCUC, which has written a pretty thorough > > critique of the process, I'd have rather said NCUC than "others," but > > someone here wouldn't prefer that...?) > > > > *Saying "we are convinced" it can be done seems a leap of faith, I'd > > rather express a hope. And "fully addressed" seems stronger than > > "dealt with." One could "deal with" concerns by briefly mentioning > > and dismissing them. > > > > Just copy editing suggestions, I'll roll with whichever version has > > strong support in the group. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > > >> > >> Bill and all, > >> > >> Yes, it may seem contradictory to suggest lot of changes and at the > >> same > >> time express concern about possible delays. > >> Actually, I think the European concern is more directed towards some > >> North > >> American calls to drop the process entirely or suspend it until a > >> series of > >> long studies are performed on the relevance to the market of the > >> whole new > >> gTLD process. > >> > >> I suggest an amendment to the text that would read: > >> > >> "The EURALO does not support recent calls to delay the new gTLD > >> process > >> until additional studies are performed. We are particularly > >> concerned about > >> any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country > >> code, > >> and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. We > >> understand that ICANN needs to carefully examine and address concerns > >> raised in the numerous comments that were submitted. However, we are > >> convinced they can be dealt with without slowing down dramatically the > >> ongoing process." > >> > >> To reply to Annette: I had a discussion with some NARALO members, > >> and they > >> disagree about the "no further delay" paragraph. Hence, I expect the > >> common > >> ALAC statement to be silent about that. > >> > >> The full Euralo statement is here: > >> > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_additional_statement_regarding… > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Patrick > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:34:47 +0100, William Drake > >> <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> Thanks to Patrick, Adam and others for pushing this forward. > >>> Appending regional comments to the ALAC statement seems like a good > >>> idea. I wonder though about the key sentence, "EURALO does not > >>> support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD process." I'm not > >>> clear on how this conclusion fits with the laundry list of concerns > >>> raised in both the EURALO and ALAC texts. Together, they say we want > >>> ICANN to rethink registry/registrar separations; amend the guide's > >>> requirements regarding the use of registrars; have a different > >>> approval process for geographical, community bounded, non-commercial, > >>> not-for-profit gTLDs; change the one-size-fits all fee structure; > >>> improve compliance processes; build in public interest oriented > >>> mechanisms; get rid of MAPO objections; drop ICC arbitration; change > >>> the number of applications contemplated in the first round; and > >>> develop a comprehensive resourcing plan for the new gTLD program. > >>> How > >>> could addressing all these concerns not involve delays in the > >>> process? Can we really have it both ways? Would we be happy if the > >>> board cited the "no delays" headline conclusion as support for moving > >>> forward, but then didn't address fully the concerns raised? Is > >>> that a > >>> far-fetched scenario? > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > Senior Associate > > Centre for International Governance > > Graduate Institute of International and > > Development Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch > > New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, > > http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj > > *********************************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org > --

2 1

EURALO position on DNSSEC for ENISA
by lutz＠thur.de Feb. 2, 2009

Feb. 2, 2009

On the workshop "Improving the resilience of DNS" I did use the chance to present as very short position of EURALO, because Patrick and Sébastien were unable to attend. My statement was essentially the same as Patrik Fältström's presentation. I only refered to the technically ignorant end user position and stressed a plain, simple and working communication for all issues with a single entity, usually the last reseller in the chain. If Patrick or Sébastien had prepared some slides, I'll be happy to submit them to the working group. http://www.enisa.europa.eu/sta/h_ws09a_03.html

2 1