An interesting discussion regarding Kurt Pritz's testimony before the United States Congress
From the NARALO list.
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= 1. Re: IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs (Evan Leibovitch) 2. Re: IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs (Alan Greenberg) 3. Re: IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs (Evan Leibovitch) 4. Call for Membership of the At-Large Whois WG (Silvia Vivanco) 5. Re: IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs (Joly MacFie) 6. Re: IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs (Alan Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:06:31 -0500 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs To: Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org On 9 December 2011 16:38, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:
KP: So a point I wanted to make at the end, and I missed making earlier, is in our testimony, when we talk about a consensus-based process and that there's a consensus for launching this program in this manner, those consensus opinions are hard-fought and hard-won. ICANN<http://news.dot-nxt.com/taxonomy/term/107> is a very noisy environment and it's all those groups you mentioned: IP, attorneys, corporations, not for profits, non-commercials and...
"and...." Exactly. Kurt never mentioned At-Large by name. He mentioned the other stakeholders multiple times, even though he.... knows us by now. I can cut Esther some slack because she has no idea of what At-Large has evolved to in "the RALO era". OTOH, Kurt correctly never counted At-Large as part of the consensus but also refused to acknowledge our existence either, so there was no counter to Esther's PoV on this. We were the only stakeholders not mentioned. What I would like is for the Committee -- and other bodies seeking the voice of end users in ICANN -- to know where to find us. And vice versa. - Evan ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 17:43:49 -0500 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs --------------------------------------------------- I've excerpted a paragraph from Evan here, but I am really addressing a wider issue that his specific comment. I think that we need to be a bit carful with generalizations. For example: - NCUC was not opposed to the entire concept. They were very much opposed to some particular aspects, the morality issue being arguably the largest one. Some within the NCUC advocated a FAR looser structure than we now have, with minimal rules, processes and fees. - IPC has generally supported the concept, of new gTLDs, nut wanted a lot more (and stronger) rules regarding trademarks and (in their mind) related issues. So yes, many parts of the community were opposed to specific aspects of the program. But it is important to note that in many cases, issues that various parties were unhappy with were in direct opposition to issues that some other segment of the community strongly advocated. The only way to address all of the concerns would be to not have any new gTLDs, and yet a very large part of the community (including At-Large) felt that new gTLDs were crucially important. Alan At 09/12/2011 03:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
So the NCUC was opposed. ALAC was opposed (see below). The GAC was opposed. The IPC was opposed, and clearly not appeased by the IRT and STI efforts. And the CADNA/ANA opposition indicates that either ICANN's business community was opposed, or that it is unrepresentative of the broader business community (perhaps because it is an umbrella that equally includes both domainers and Internet content providers.)
------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:23:22 -0500 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Nobody that I know disagrees with the concept of having at least a few more gTLDs, if only to address the artificial scarcity problem (that is arguably of ICANN's own creation). Everyone likes the concept. Many don't like the execution. Yes, I generalized. I don't have the cycles to write the level of detail the issue might otherwise command. But I stand by my overall assertion that ICANN (and Kurt specifically in his testimony) glosses over the level of opposition and cynicism regarding the program, which notably includes the two bodies ICANN has said exist to protect the public interest; the GAC and ALAC. And I support the comments made earlier by Garth. And please spare the "perfect is the enemy of the good" rationale. To me this is more like "the barely tolerable is the enemy of the disasterous". - Evan On 9 December 2011 17:43, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I've excerpted a paragraph from Evan here, but I am really addressing a wider issue that his specific comment.
I think that we need to be a bit carful with generalizations. For example:
- NCUC was not opposed to the entire concept. They were very much opposed to some particular aspects, the morality issue being arguably the largest one. Some within the NCUC advocated a FAR looser structure than we now have, with minimal rules, processes and fees.
- IPC has generally supported the concept, of new gTLDs, nut wanted a lot more (and stronger) rules regarding trademarks and (in their mind) related issues.
So yes, many parts of the community were opposed to specific aspects of the program. But it is important to note that in many cases, issues that various parties were unhappy with were in direct opposition to issues that some other segment of the community strongly advocated. The only way to address all of the concerns would be to not have any new gTLDs, and yet a very large part of the community (including At-Large) felt that new gTLDs were crucially important.
Alan
At 09/12/2011 03:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
So the NCUC was opposed. ALAC was opposed (see below). The GAC was opposed. The IPC was opposed, and clearly not appeased by the IRT and STI efforts. And the CADNA/ANA opposition indicates that either ICANN's business community was opposed, or that it is unrepresentative of the broader business community (perhaps because it is an umbrella that equally includes both domainers and Internet content providers.)
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 20:18:16 -0500 From: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs To: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> +1 on this. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote: I think Senators and those who testify should be better educated about
their subject manner. For example I found it amazing that those seeking defense from new gTLD in their name, did not admit to the existence of the Independent Objector, who could take their issue forward if someone was applying for their name fraudulently. All of the Charitable and Service NGOs could use this avenue as well as the good services of their GAC representative who could bring GAC consensus into supporting their cause, when just. E.g. I am certain that if a group of pedophiles where to apply for YMCA, the US GAC representative would make sure that it did not go forward, it might even fail the first test on the applicant-check. So they have lots of avenues for redress without having to resort to a too-high* Formal Objection fee.
I hope ICANN releases and sends to the Committee a point by point refutation of the negative points made in testimony - showing the mechanisms that have been created to address the particular concerns (e.g. application question 18c in response to defensive second level registration issues).
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 19:14:26 -0500 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't disagree with any of that. I just didn't want the simplifications to detract from the real issues. Regarding Kurt, perhaps that is his blindness, or perhaps he was there to defend ICANN and that is what he did. Alan At 09/12/2011 06:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Nobody that I know disagrees with the concept of having at least a few more gTLDs, if only to address the artificial scarcity problem (that is arguably of ICANN's own creation).
Everyone likes the concept. Many don't like the execution.
Yes, I generalized. I don't have the cycles to write the level of detail the issue might otherwise command. But I stand by my overall assertion that ICANN (and Kurt specifically in his testimony) glosses over the level of opposition and cynicism regarding the program, which notably includes the two bodies ICANN has said exist to protect the public interest; the GAC and ALAC. And I support the comments made earlier by Garth.
And please spare the "perfect is the enemy of the good" rationale. To me this is more like "the barely tolerable is the enemy of the disasterous".
- Evan
On 9 December 2011 17:43, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: I've excerpted a paragraph from Evan here, but I am really addressing a wider issue that his specific comment.
I think that we need to be a bit carful with generalizations. For example:
- NCUC was not opposed to the entire concept. They were very much opposed to some particular aspects, the morality issue being arguably the largest one. Some within the NCUC advocated a FAR looser structure than we now have, with minimal rules, processes and fees.
- IPC has generally supported the concept, of new gTLDs, nut wanted a lot more (and stronger) rules regarding trademarks and (in their mind) related issues.
So yes, many parts of the community were opposed to specific aspects of the program. But it is important to note that in many cases, issues that various parties were unhappy with were in direct opposition to issues that some other segment of the community strongly advocated. The only way to address all of the concerns would be to not have any new gTLDs, and yet a very large part of the community (including At-Large) felt that new gTLDs were crucially important.
Alan
At 09/12/2011 03:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
So the NCUC was opposed. ALAC was opposed (see below). The GAC was opposed. The IPC was opposed, and clearly not appeased by the IRT and STI efforts. And the CADNA/ANA opposition indicates that either ICANN's business community was opposed, or that it is unrepresentative of the broader business community (perhaps because it is an umbrella that equally includes both domainers and Internet content providers.)