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@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?