December 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post
by Joly MacFie Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

As mentioned in the meeting here was my response to Esther's posting to the IP list. Farber has not, as yet, elected to forward it. He is anti-GTLD expansion too. I snipped the attachments which were Esther's testimony and the WP article. j ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: WWWhatsup <joly(a)dti.net> Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [IP] from Dyson -- ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post To: dave(a)farber.net Cc: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> Hi Dave, Esther says: ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except its own coterie of registries, > registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory, it's accountable to the public, > but the public pays no attention.... The truth is that Esther herself has paid no attention during the six years of process that has led to the new gTLD program. She ignores the roles of the NonCommercial Stakeholder Group, the At-Large Advisory Council, and, most importantly, the Government Advisory Council - all representing the public in one form or another - in forging the rules. The North American Regional At-Large Organization, incidentally, is unique amongst the regions in that it is open to participation by individuals - http://naralo.org. Also, there have been long fought out battles within the "coterie" - you can bet that the trademark lawyers had plenty of input. This culminated in a series of public hearings worldwide where voiced public outrage shot down such concepts as a global trademark reserved list. As for accountability, ICANN still operates under an agreement with the United States Government under which it guarantees accountability and transparency. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/icann In fact, Larry Strickling of the NTIA addressed the issue on the very same day as the Senate hearing. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/remarks-assistant-secretary-st… Here is what he said: For example, at ICANN, a multistakeholder process that ran for six years > resulted in the approval last summer of an expansion of top level domains. > This process involved global stakeholders from the business community, > civil society, registries, registrars, and governments. At NTIA, we worked > throughout the process to make sure that ICANN adequately addressed > government concerns and we have also spent significant time the last two > years pushing for overall improvements in ICANN’s accountability and > transparency to the global Internet community. > > Nonetheless, we are now seeing parties that did not like the outcome of > that multistakeholder process trying to collaterally attack the outcome and > seek unilateral action by the U.S. government to overturn or delay the > product of a six-year multistakeholder process that engaged folks from all > over the world. The multistakeholder process does not guarantee that > everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. But it is critical to > preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to > date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the > outcome once a decision is reached. When parties ask us to overturn the > outcomes of these processes, no matter how well-intentioned the request, > they are providing “ammunition” to other countries who attempt to justify > their unilateral actions to deny their citizens the free flow of > information on the Internet. This we will not do. There is too much at > stake here. > > But we are sensitive to the concerns being raised by some companies about > the introduction of new gTLDs. Today, Chairman Rockefeller held an > important oversight hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on the subject > of how ICANN will expand top level domains. We agree with the Chairman’s > concerns over how this program will be implemented and its potential > negative effect if not implemented properly. We will closely monitor the > execution of the program and are committed to working with stakeholders, > including U.S. industry, to mitigate any unintended consequences. On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Esther Dyson <edyson(a)edventure.com> > Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM > Subject: Re: [IP] ICANN What’s the .rush? - The Washington Post > To: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > Cc: ip <ip(a)listbox.com> > > > Dave - > > Thanks so much for reposting this. I know everyone is concerned (and > justly) about SOPA right now, but ICANN is unaccountable to anyone except > its own coterie of registries, registrars, trademark lawyers. In theory, > it's accountable to the public, but the public pays no attention.... So, > everyone, please pay attention! In 5 years, people will use Google et al. > instead of URLs anyway, but in the meantime a TLD 1 percent is going to get > rich by confusing and "protecting" the 99 percent. > > <snip> > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > >

3 2

Minutes today NARALO
by Glenn McKnight Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Meeting+Notes+Dec+12%2C+2… -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

2 1

U.S. House Hearing Wednesday -- NPOC statement
by Beau Brendler Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Note that, in addition to being asked to testify (http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00064.html) the NPOC is preparing a statement for the congressional committee, due tomorrow afternoon. The NPOC appears to be speaking for the NCSG if I read the notes correctly. The YMCA's IP person was their rep to the committee. Perhaps this was discussed at the ALAC-NPOC handshake meeting, I don't know, I wasn't there. BB -----Original Message----- >From: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Sent: Dec 12, 2011 11:56 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] U.S. House Hearing Wednesday > >So, here are the details of the hearing: >http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9134 > >There is a list of committee members here: >http://energycommerce.house.gov/about/members.shtml > > > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:34 AM >To: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs > >> The feeling I keep getting is that the A&T and other reform kind of stuff >> is ready to be given to us .... AFTER the gTLD goldrush is dome, after all >> the bad consequences are in place, and we can then have a wonderfully >> transparent (and associatedly long, inconclusive and probably gamed) >> process for cleaning up the mess. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> >> On 12 December 2011 10:11, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> >>> > I agree that the accountability and transparency still has a long ways >>> to go. But I think it has improved and is improving - albeit too slowly. >>> So I agree that is something we definitely have to keep pushing on. >>> Make >>> them live up to the promises made. >>> >>> Agreed, so long as we're saying that they still need to fix the A and T >>> first, then do other stuff. There are plenty of nice people working at >>> ICANN, but as an institution it has a great deal of trouble doing what it >>> says it's going to do, for anything that doesn't lead directly to >>> revenue. >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >>> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

2 1

Today's meeting
by Thompson, Darlene Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Hi all, I have some kind of stomach flu today I made it to the working group meeting at noon today but things have taken a turn for the worse. I have bad things shooting out of both ends of me. Can somebody else take notes? Thanks a bunch. I think I'm going to go wish for death now. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
by Beau Brendler Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

I've done it before -- you have to be invited. If you are not a US citizen you can refuse if called. However the issue is getting the message heard. Hearings are tightly scripted and you don't just get the chance to get up and make a statement, it's not like an ICANN free for all. I agree that we should make a statement, and would be happy to author one for NARALO, providing we can actually come to a rough consensus as to what to say. Not everyone agrees with the current sentiment against new gTLDs. That said, if we can create a statement with consensus, since we are a part of ICANN, we could, I should think, compel ICANN's lobbyist (whoever their VP of government affairs is now) to present the statement on our behalf, even if it goes against ICANN's party line. The other question to ask is, did Kurt do his due multi-stakeholder diligence and actually ask what policy position(s) should be presented? Did Olivier know anything about this in advance and was he consulted? One would think that the U.S. Congress would be interested in what the end-user community might think... All that said, we could probably also submit a statement that would be taken seriously via John D. Rockefeller's office. I have, shall we say, discussed consumer issues with them before. -----Original Message----- >From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.ie> >Sent: Dec 8, 2011 3:37 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs > >Evan > >They've had non-US witnesses at past hearings if my memory serves me > >Regards > >Michele > >Mr. Michele Neylon >Blacknight >http://Blacknight.tel > >Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity > >On 8 Dec 2011, at 14:59, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> This morning, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and >> Transportation held a hearing on the ICANN new gTLD program. >> >> The web page describing the hearing, which includes a video of the entire >> 90-minute session, is at http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH >> I am told that it will soon be uploaded to the Committee's YouTube channel >> at http://www.youtube.com/user/SenateCommercePress >> >> Among the speakers are >> >> - Kurt Pritz, ICANN VP >> - Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers who is trying to >> block the new gTLD program >> - Fiona Alexander with the US NTIA >> - Angela Williams of the US YMCA (speaking after deliberation with >> ICANN's Non-Profit Organization Constituency) >> - Esther Dyson, former ICANN Board member (and ALAC member from the >> pre-RALO days when ALAC was all-appointed) >> >> It's VERY interesting listening. Kurt's message -- that adequate >> protections are in place in the program to deter large amounts of money >> spent on defensive registrations -- was not well received. In contrast, the >> committee heard about several instances -- in some cases by the Senators >> themselves -- who were the victims of cybersquatting and domain >> speculators. All other speakers were critical of the program and some were >> even asking if the US government has the authority to block the roll-out >> from happening in January as ICANN intends. >> >> Interesting note amongst the comments... many orgs have found themselves >> needing to but defencive registrations in .XXX and are livid at the thought >> of having to do a bunch more for future TLDs. (For instance, Indiana >> University has purchased "hoosiers.xxx"). >> >> Of note to us.... much was made by Kurt of the consensus between >> stakeholders. Dan shot that down in relation to business users and Angela >> said the NPOC wasn't allowed to become a real stakeholder in time to have >> an impact on decisions already made. Esther made mention at the end that >> the real constituency not yet heard from (at least by the Senators) was the >> billions of Internet end users. Mention was made that the committee now >> needs to hear from them. >> >> Sounds like an opportunity to me. >> >> Now... I don't know if one has to be a US citizen to testify; if not the >> ICANN Chair or vice chairs (of which I am one) would all be good candidates >> and in fact the international character of ALAC sends a useful message IMO. >> But if the requirement is to be a US resident, I have complete and utter >> faith that NARALO's own leadership includes people (Beau, Ganesh, Eduardo) >> who could easily step into the role and do the community proud. >> >> Further to this, I would like to raise the issue as an agenda item on >> Monday's NARALO call and I would like us to consider letting the Committee >> know that there is indeed a group within ICANN that exists to provide the >> voice of Internet end-users, >> >> Thank you. >> >> - Evan >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

10 17

DRAFT communique to CCNSO working group
by Beau Brendler Dec. 12, 2011

Dec. 12, 2011

Greetings. One of the action items from the last NARALO meeting, as a follow-up to the .PR issue, was to prepare a communication from the NARALO to the appropriate subcommittee within the CCNSO that is looking at reform -- I believe it is called MAC or some other acronymial thing. Cheryl Langdon-Orr has offered to convey this communique, since she is at-large liaison to the CCNSO, so I am sure she can tell us the exact name of the appropriate recipient group and make sure this gets to them. You'll notice some similar language in the draft, I pared down the original draft statement to about three paragraphs, and then added some substance from the Knujon research. Please feel free to add your comments, corrections, etc. DRAFT ----------------------------------------------------------------- The North American At-Large Regional Organization is concerned about the management of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico's country code top-level domain, .pr, following a June 2011 lawsuit filed by The University of Puerto Rico against the domain's manager alleging misappropriation of public funds and inappropriate ownership claim, among other allegations. In 1988, the U.S. National Science Foundation established a program to expand use of the Internet outside the United States by establishing a domain registration that would allow each country connected to the network to offer access through that domain. The University of Puerto Rico, through its Gauss Research Laboratory requested the domain ".pr" (institutional research number 8818283, "Support for the Participation of the University of Puerto Rico in the NSFNet"). This proposal was approved in 1989. Administration of the .pr domain was designated to the "Gauss Research Laboratory" with the university as manager. In 2006, the .pr ccTLD's manager contacted the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority to request a name change in the sponsoring organization, from the University of Puerto Rico to a corporation with the same name, including the abbreviations "INC. i.e. Gauss Research Laboratory, Inc." As a result, Gauss Research Laboratory Inc. was permitted to remove the .pr ccTLD operations outside the university campus, as well as redirect any funds generated by domain purchases. The NARALO is concerned the apparent "re-delegation" of the .pr domain represents a potential abuse of public trust and misappropriation of Internet resources. In addition, while the controversy over Puerto Rico's country-code domain may seem unusual, findings presented in the final report of the ccNSO Delegation and Redelegation Working Group ([1]http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-drd-report-02may11-en.pdf) clearly indicate it is not. Further problematic findings in the ccTLD space were documented by Knujon, an at-large structure in the NARALO, in a June 5, 2009 report ([2]http://www.knujon.com/ccTLD_Research_knujon_052109.pdf) We would like to call the ccNSOâs specific attention to pages 9- 10 and 17-20 in the report, which specifically name ccTLDs frequently used by criminals, and other country code domains potentially at risk for the same kind of abuse, as well as apparently dormant ccTLDs issued, for instance, to islands populated by birds and sea mammals, but no humans. NARALO applauds and supports the ccNSO working group's desire, stated in its working groupâs report, to "create an environment for making consistent and predictable decisions regarding the delegation, re-delegation and retirement of ccTLDs while enhancing accountability and transparency." We would like to encourage the working group to directly address the issues raised in the Knujon report, as well as disclose, for accountability and transparencyâs sake, pertinent discussion on the .pr situation. The NARALO believes that the public needs to be fully informed about this valuable Internet resource, how it is being managed, and what steps are being taken to ensure its proper administration in the future. References 1. http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/final-drd-report-02may11-en.pdf 2. http://www.knujon.com/ccTLD_Research_knujon_052109.pdf

1 0

Call for Membership of the At-Large Whois WG
by Silvia Vivanco Dec. 10, 2011

Dec. 10, 2011

Dear All, Carlton Samuels, the Chairman of the At-Large Whois Working Group, has requested a call for membership to join this WG. As we are seeking a regionally balanced WG, members from the currently underrepresented RALOs of APRALO, EURALO and NARALO, are particularly encouraged to join. If you are interested in joining, please be so kind to declare your interest, your domicile, and At-Large regional affiliation to At-Large Staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> by Friday, 16 December. At-Large Staff will add your name to the list of members. Thank you. Kind regards, Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 10, 2011

Dec. 10, 2011

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(a)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 ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at <http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org >------ >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

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.)

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
by gbruen＠knujon.com Dec. 9, 2011

Dec. 9, 2011

Avri, I hear your points, however Kurt's description of the rough and tumble process cast ICANN constituents as a family that has spirited arguments and then sits down for the same meal when it is really more complex than that. Kurt isn't a patriarch who speaks for me. The voice of the consumer was not present in this hearing. The consensus facade went down the drain as soon as he said he had to get permission from the Registrars to implement policy. Now, to be clear, I am not against new gtlds, I think it is inevitable. What I don't want is for them to be rolled out in a business as usual environment. Kurt's private meeting after the public hearing is more BAU. If .xxx is a microcosm of the new gtld world then it is a market driven by fear and not real consumer desire. The public is not clamoring for new gtlds. I want to see some things fixed and some more disclosure, that's my motivation. Any letter should explain what is missing from the discussion and questions of why. There's no need to wait until the next round if we can do it now. If it's so important to roll them out on time it's important enough to address our concerns at the same time if they want continued support and "consensus." I think it is valid that non-profits cannot enter the new space with the pricing, same for developing markets. The costs may keep people from willy-nilly making new gtlds but it is not a barrier to criminal groups and one made for existing industry insiders. -Garth ------Original Message------ From: Avri Doria Sender: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs Sent: Dec 9, 2011 11:38 Hi, I disagree that Kurt was conveying a meaning of Complete Consensus when he referred to ICANN Consensus. He was quite specific about the rough and tumble of ICANN consensus and even made reference to the NCUC, whose members were the only ones that did not support the policy recommendation at the time it was approved. I note that although they did not prevail in the consensus and were part of the losing voice, they have since supported the ICANN consensus decision made against their vote. I agree that the ALAC deserves a real response to its advice, and when ALAC says something is unacceptable, there should be a process, I beleive one that is similar to that accorded GAC advice, to discuss and close the issue. And I find it problematic that the Board has never discussed these issues with the ALAC (I am assuming they haven't since I don't really know - did they? Was it ever part of the BOARD-ALAC regular face to face discussions? Did we formally request further dialogue on the At-Large issues? GAC did not get it negotiations automatically as far as I know). As for the new gTLDs themselves. I personally support them going forward now, warts and all, and would not support a letter from this RALO or from ALAC stating that At-Large opposes new gTLDs. I think the task now is to make sure they happen fairly and live up to all the promises. And to fix what we can along the way and for the next round. I would support a letter that laid out the complexities and the differences of opinion. Unless there is an At-Large decision against new gTLDs according to its processes for such a major decision or advice, I would find it hard to accept that as the voice of the users; as hard as I found accepting Dyson's claims to being the USERS' representative. I could also personally support a letter that included any changes ALAC advises would make the new gTLD process better, kind of like they did with JAS. One take way I had from the meeting was that those who were objecting to the new gTLD program were missing the fact that many of the protections that exist in the new gTLD process that do not exist in the incumbent gTLDs (would that they did!). 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 a! venues 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). Kurt needs to have a much more complete set of talking points; the process is complex and it is difficult to remember the remedy that was created for each of the hundreds of criticisms that have ben made. And if this were on line, it would be great for them to have a placard showing the url and a QR. Could even be updated real time by the ICANN boiler room in the background. avri * And yes, all of the fees are absurdly high. But what can you do in a world controlled by bean counters. PS: It was like IDNs did not exist and where not an important motivation for new gTLDs - then again it was an US Senate Committee. On 8 Dec 2011, at 19:21, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote: > Beau - Kurt did cite the multi-stakeholder model, unfortunately the way he > c Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

3 2