On copy-pasting applications
Hi folks. On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed. On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created. Rubens
Dear Rubens, Dear All: The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications. If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice, competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity. Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways that I would prefer not to. May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’. Regards CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Hi folks.
On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective
On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed.
On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
I would consider such a discussion to be a large waste of time. Not least because such a discussion was had ad nauseum in the run-up to 2012, and it was realized then as it inevitably will be realized again now that there is no way to stop multiple applications -- however you define that. Also, I would strongly argue against your premise that they are a bad thing, a premise for which you offer no factual support whatsoever. As it has turned out, portfolio applicants have been some of the most innovative and commercially successful operators, and have contributed to geographic diversity rather than denigrated from it. What is the problem you are trying to solve, and what proof do you have that it is a problem for anyone else? Without that explanation and evidence, we should not take up this point for discussion. We have plenty more left to talk about, already on the agenda. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:19 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Rubens, Dear All:
The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications. If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice, competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity. Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways that I would prefer not to.
May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’.
Regards
CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Hi folks.
On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective
On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed.
On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Mike: Well, we disagree. The multi-stakeholder character of the current PDP is quite different from the 2012 AGB. In this case I think that the 2012 AGB is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Good night CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 22:31, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com <mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote:
I would consider such a discussion to be a large waste of time. Not least because such a discussion was had ad nauseum in the run-up to 2012, and it was realized then as it inevitably will be realized again now that there is no way to stop multiple applications -- however you define that. Also, I would strongly argue against your premise that they are a bad thing, a premise for which you offer no factual support whatsoever. As it has turned out, portfolio applicants have been some of the most innovative and commercially successful operators, and have contributed to geographic diversity rather than denigrated from it.
What is the problem you are trying to solve, and what proof do you have that it is a problem for anyone else? Without that explanation and evidence, we should not take up this point for discussion. We have plenty more left to talk about, already on the agenda.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:19 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Rubens, Dear All:
The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications. If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice, competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity. Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways that I would prefer not to.
May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’.
Regards
CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:
Hi folks.
On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective
On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed.
On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
There is no difference whatsoever in the 'multistakeholder character' of this WG vs the Task Force. And it is offensive to those of us who spent literally thousands of hours developing the AGB to hear the notion that it is 'part of the problem and not of the solution'. Anyway, you do not get to tie up this WG, costing literally tens of thousands of dollars per hour in lost time of its members, simply because you have an idea. You need to prove a problem, and that someone other than you thinks its' a real problem in need of a solution. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:43 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Mike:
Well, we disagree.
The multi-stakeholder character of the current PDP is quite different from the 2012 AGB. In this case I think that the 2012 AGB is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Good night
CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 22:31, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
I would consider such a discussion to be a large waste of time. Not least because such a discussion was had ad nauseum in the run-up to 2012, and it was realized then as it inevitably will be realized again now that there is no way to stop multiple applications -- however you define that. Also, I would strongly argue against your premise that they are a bad thing, a premise for which you offer no factual support whatsoever. As it has turned out, portfolio applicants have been some of the most innovative and commercially successful operators, and have contributed to geographic diversity rather than denigrated from it.
What is the problem you are trying to solve, and what proof do you have that it is a problem for anyone else? Without that explanation and evidence, we should not take up this point for discussion. We have plenty more left to talk about, already on the agenda.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:19 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Dear Rubens, Dear All:
The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications. If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice, competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity. Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways that I would prefer not to.
May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’.
Regards
CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Hi folks.
On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective
On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed.
On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Just a note from the WG Guidelines regarding the responsibilities of a Working Group member - hopefully we can keep the tone of these exchanges cordial… Anne [cid:image001.png@01D4E31F.3C4E9020] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 2:52 PM To: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] On copy-pasting applications [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ There is no difference whatsoever in the 'multistakeholder character' of this WG vs the Task Force. And it is offensive to those of us who spent literally thousands of hours developing the AGB to hear the notion that it is 'part of the problem and not of the solution'. Anyway, you do not get to tie up this WG, costing literally tens of thousands of dollars per hour in lost time of its members, simply because you have an idea. You need to prove a problem, and that someone other than you thinks its' a real problem in need of a solution. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:43 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Mike: Well, we disagree. The multi-stakeholder character of the current PDP is quite different from the 2012 AGB. In this case I think that the 2012 AGB is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Good night CW On 25 Mar 2019, at 22:31, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: I would consider such a discussion to be a large waste of time. Not least because such a discussion was had ad nauseum in the run-up to 2012, and it was realized then as it inevitably will be realized again now that there is no way to stop multiple applications -- however you define that. Also, I would strongly argue against your premise that they are a bad thing, a premise for which you offer no factual support whatsoever. As it has turned out, portfolio applicants have been some of the most innovative and commercially successful operators, and have contributed to geographic diversity rather than denigrated from it. What is the problem you are trying to solve, and what proof do you have that it is a problem for anyone else? Without that explanation and evidence, we should not take up this point for discussion. We have plenty more left to talk about, already on the agenda. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:19 PM lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote: Dear Rubens, Dear All: The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications. If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice, competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity. Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways that I would prefer not to. May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’. Regards CW
On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote:
Hi folks.
On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two different things: 1) If the application should or must have this feature 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy perspective
On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be discouraged or disallowed.
On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
Rubens
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Em 25 de mar de 2019, à(s) 18:19:000, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu escreveu:
Dear Rubens, Dear All:
The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications. If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice, competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity. Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways that I would prefer not to.
May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’.
This was already discussed and is already reflected in the initial report, not adopting limits on number of applications by any criteria. So having an implementation guidance that contradicts that policy would be curious to say the least. Rubens
participants (4)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rubens Kuhl