i am fine with it too.
And me too. Bill, we needn't be too worried about our requests causing delay. The point of the rolling process of comment and re-drafting is to accommodate changes, what EU RALO is asking for isn't all that radical (of course some would need to be negotiated with other stakeholders.) That said, parts of the ALAC draft, like the suggestion to re-introduce a limited first round would cause a major disruption. But I don't think we're supporting that. Are we? I think the ALAC draft is also wrong to suggest ICANN hasn't any idea of how to handle the work the programme will create -- expect anyone involved in draft an 1000 page guidebook has a very good idea of what's ahead, and there's awareness of need for resources (hence the fee structure we disagree with.) That paragraph could be better restated to identify the need to ensure adequate resources able to cope with the workload. Similar, the ALAC paragraph about ICANN's slowly improving compliance process should again be stated as advice, perhaps along the lines of: ICANN¹s compliance processes are improving slowly, however to accommodate hundreds of new TLDs they must be significantly more robust ... we recommend a review of current practises to identify of weaknesses and propose solutions to be ready for the launch of the new TLD acceptance and contracting period.... or some such.) Adam
;-) annette
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> Gesendet: 30.01.09 12:35:09 An: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@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@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@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@graduateinstitute.ch New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks, http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj ***********************************************************
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
--
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org