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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

With .berlin, I think the issue was severe limitation of German TLDs, .de being the favored and oversubscribed choice. And so Germany was running out of appealing options. I don't know if that's still the case, but to me that has more merit as something of public interest than, say, .wienerschnitzel, or arguments that the public will suddenly decide it must have thousands more TLDs after it sees the first 500. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Sent: Apr 1, 2011 2:10 PM >To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Hi, > >I do not understand in what way their application is so special from all other applications that they should jump the queue. >As I recall .Berlin was ready a long time ago and they too asked to be given special license to go before everyone. >In fact I can think of few applicants who do not think their application is special and should be able to go before all the others. >So at least in the presumption that they should go first, they aren't very different. > >What they all seem to ignore is that any effort to push ahead, necessarily pushes everyone else behind. >Or maybe they don't ignroe it, they might just not care. > >a. > > >On 31 Mar 2011, at 15:07, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > >> On 3/31/11 1:52 PM, Richard Tindal wrote: >>> Thanks for those kind words >>> >>> Where we differ is the effect on an applicant of being deferred to the second round due to any 'limitation' mechanism (this would probably be a one or two year delay - i.e. a 2013 application). >>> >>> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective users). >> >> The City of Paris entered into a process to select a registry operator >> in 2007. The City of New York did so in 2009. >> >> These two applicants have been waiting for ICANN to accept >> applications, for for its own reasons ICANN has refused to accept >> applications from each, arguing that it, ICANN, had some policy >> development, unrelated to either application, to resolve as a >> precondition to accepting either application. >> >> At some point, perhaps in 2011, in this one-of-two hypothetical to >> explore the claim of harm, one of these two application is accepted by >> ICANN, and in 2013 the other of these two application is accepted by >> ICANN. >> >> Assume Paris before New York (unless you find a good reason to >> entertain New York before Paris), and describe the harm to New York >> (or Paris), resulting from this delay. >> >> I hope this isn't necessary, but under the GAC model, the status of >> Paris as the capital of a territory with a code point in ISO 3166, and >> the lack of that status for New York, is not relevant, as the GAC >> model proposes, inter alia, to do more than just establish and resolve >> contention sets. So both .paris and .nyc are to be allocated >> unconditionally to the applications brought by the municipal >> authorities of Paris and New York City, respectively. I just wanted to >> eliminate this as a possible rational for harm, as I believe you're >> making a much broader delay-equals-harm claim. >> >> Eric >> >>> R >>> >>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 4:54 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >>> >>>> Richard, >>>> >>>> First, my condolences. Of the many persons I've worked with while responsible for XRP/EPP standards development at NeuStar and the technical aspects of NeuStar/NeuLevel's .biz and .us applications, and competed with prior to separating from CORE, I consider you to be one of the most level headed and pragmatic, as well as ingenious, of the for-profit advocates, and your lack of employment indicative of how clueless and unenlightened the self-interested actors in the .com following portion of the domain name industry really are. >>>> >>>> There are two models to work with. >>>> >>>> The Staff model, which for all of our respective advocacy, and that of our peers, we've only decorated slightly since San Juan. That one has one or more tranches of 500 from a single application window, with no policy tools to differentiate applications other than those for the purposes of determining string contention outcomes. >>>> >>>> The GAC model, which so far has not much specific form (not that the Staff model has a lot of essential form, though it has a great deal of simulation of form), and which I and some others may manage to decorate slightly. That one has a sub-tranche, and after a period sufficient to resolve some outstanding policy issues, another sub-tranche, possibly both from a single application window. >>>> >>>> The Staff model has the feature that it is nominally cyclic, and a second application window, with attractive features like the possibility of lower cost to the applicant, in a year or two after the first round. >>>> >>>> The GAC model has the feature that it proposes that the set of policy issues in which applications not policy-qualified (and the term in Heather's letter of Oct. 23rd was "non-controversial" which I hope we can agree means policy-qualified for some statement of policy, regardless of what one's views on the utility or necessity of that policy may be) can be resolved in a period comparable to or less than what Staff proposes as the period between rounds. >>>> >>>> Abstractly then, the two models into which to fit our competing assumptions are an application window in which anything is accepted (Staff) and an application window in which less than anything is accepted (GAC), and regardless of the absence or existence of condition on that first application window, recurring windows without restriction. >>>> >>>> So if you accept the above, then I suggest that the problem you've posed, Paris before New York (or the reverse), results in no harm to the application which is deferred for lack of capacity in the tranche beyond a delay. Paris, or New York, waits a year or two and then its application is processed. Given the modest level of harm to the municipal governments of Paris and New York of any year of delay, it is not a given that the harm of deciding which to delay is sufficiently great to abandon the putative advantages of the GAC model for the putative advantages of the Staff model. >>>> >>>> I commend to you the recent paper prepared for Rod Beckstrom by ICANN Staff on the NTIA NOI for the IANA Functions. You'll find that ICANN Staff are quite committed to the preference of private agency, of necessity for-profit (and of course dominated by the highly profitable), over public agency, to a truely astonishing degree. >>>> >>>> As to the mechanism for limiting to N some set of M applications, where all M applications meet some policy criteria (GAC model, generally), where M is greater than N, a spelling bee using words from the first language of the applicant would suffice, as there is, as I pointed out above, little actual loss to qualified applicants in deferring the processing of their application by the interval currently proposed in either model. >>>> >>>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------ >> 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 >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

This was a general statement of discussion, not an attempt to convey an opinion derived through social science. One thing I don't need a poll to tell me, though, is that anecdotal evidence presented by someone who is directly lobbying on behalf of his own considerable financial interests should be taken with a tablespoon of salt. -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Mar 31, 2011 6:46 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com>, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >I'm not sure I understand this -- is the will of the end-user decided by ad-hoc polling? If so, my own anecdotal evidence is quite different, and opposite. I'm very confident about my polling, and I'm putting my money on the line to back it up. > >What about the the 600K registrants in .CO? Are they all either profiteers or deluded by smoke and mirrors? > >If not private polling, how exactly are the desires of the end-user determined? > >Antony > > >On Mar 31, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >>> It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >> ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >> hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests.< >> >> Another factor I suspect is that a number of members of the ALAC who had their own self-interest in new gTLDs have moved on, or the financial interests are no longer there. >> >> I can't think of a single end-user I have encountered over the last decade who has given a damn about access to new top-level domains. Rather, they want to know which existing domains are "safer" than others. I have talked to some "content" providers, for lack of a better term, who are interested in .health, and I can clearly see their reasons, as well as .gay and .trust (signed domain/DNSSEC for banking). >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 3:51 PM >>> To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> >>> Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> On 31 March 2011 13:52, Richard Tindal <richardtindal(a)me.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You don't see this as a major problem for deferred applicants, whereas I >>>> think it would be very harmful to some applicants (and their prospective >>>> users). >>>> >>> >>> Whether I see this (deferral) as a major problem for applicants is fairly >>> irrelevant. This is At-Large, after all, which exists to protect the >>> interests of end-users of the Internet who, by and large, are not even >>> registrants. They're not even part of the ICANN food chain. >>> >>> I care more about harm to end users than I care about harm to applicants. >>> And end user concerns are VERY, VERY different. >>> >>> So basing any argument here about >>> >>> You have not demonstrated (sufficiently to me, at least) that end users are >>> harmed by delay. Not registrants, end users. >>> >>> Is there ANY instance that one could name in which the public has been >>> deprived of original Internet content because of limitations of the existing >>> namespace? >>> >>> It is interesting to note Antony's chronology, and the observation that as >>> ALAC has grown more democratic and less appointed, it has cooled to the gTLD >>> hysteria about gTLDs shared by ICANN's more-vested interests. Correlation >>> does not necessarily infer causality, but I do think there's a definite >>> connection here. The more At-Large reflects the Internet end user, and the >>> more that the end user community knows about ICANN, the less it cares about >>> the panic rush for more TLDs. >>> >>> The only exception to this is the IDN fast track for ccTLDs, which did have >>> end-user demand (and my full support). >>> >>> - 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 >> ------ >

2 1

ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team - Call for Comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 1, 2011

April 1, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Public Call by the Stability, Security and Resilience of the DNS Review Team (SSR-RT) which has been drafted by Patrick Vande Walle: URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Comments+on+the+Publi c+Call+by+the+Stability%2C+Security%2C+and+Resilience+of+the+DNS+Review+Team +%28SSR-RT%29+-+March+2011) Short URL: https://community.icann.org/x/aQKX. The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#ssr-rt-issues. This public comment closes on Wednesday, 6 April. Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Sunday, 3 April. An ALAC vote will begin on 4 April. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0