12 July 2010 NARALO Action Items
Dear All, The action items from today’s NARALO are attached below and linked to agenda page under: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?12_july_2010 Action Items 12 July 2010 AI: Darlene, Evan and Matthias will work together on a process to ask individual NARALO members to submit an SOI and incorporate them in the member database. AI: Evan will draft an outreach proposal based on the discussions held during today's call and submit it to the ALAC for discussion during the next meeting. AI: Matthias will send out an announcement to the NARALO mailing list once the FR and ES version of the brochures are online. AI: Annalisa will draft a NARALO position paper on new gTLD and send it to the NARALO mailing list for comments. AI: Annalisa will send her question on the role of registrars in the IPv6 Implementation to the NARALO list AI: Annalisa will send the updated contact information for her ALS to Matthias, Evan and Darlene AI: Matthias will send the VI Overview document presented in Brussels to the NARALO list AI: Matthias will look for the transcription of the VI session in Seoul and send it to the NARALO mailing list. AI: Staff will liaise with Evan and Darlene to organize a specific meeting on Vertical Integration -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org
AI: Annalisa will draft a NARALO position paper on new gTLD and send it to the NARALO mailing list for comments.
In the meeting I had thought this merely meant a statement of support for the AFRALO statement on gTLD support for deserving applicants http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24jun10-en.htm In inter-ISOC conversation Annalisa has set me straight - this paper is intended is to be "a similiar document in support of gTLD applicants in the North American Region who may be in need or who are deserving of support. " Since the AFRALO statement was approved by ALAC it doesn't need further endorsement at the RALO level. Subsequent to this conversation I then heard from reclusive Danny Younger noting that he has made an "end-run" proposal for a 'free' .ngo tld on the .int model. http://forum.icann.org/lists/joint-wg-snapshot/msg00000.html Should NARALO also develop a position on this? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------
On 13 July 2010 17:50, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
Subsequent to this conversation I then heard from reclusive Danny Younger noting that he has made an "end-run" proposal for a 'free' .ngo tld on the .int model. http://forum.icann.org/lists/joint-wg-snapshot/msg00000.html
Well, since Danny has unsubscribed to this (NARALO) list and didn't reply to my emails (I stopped trying long ago), please relay the following: 1) Who the heck still sends out messages as Word docs? Hardly the measure of openness or web-friendliness 2) Danny is proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. He's suggesting a new single TLD that will give NGOs second-level domains for free. That is *not* what the Board has asked for and it's not what communities (such as expressed in the AFRALO/AfrICANN statement) have requested. They don't care about reducing the cost of a second-level domain, they care about reducing the cost of a *top* level domain, which is currenty priced at $185,000 plus $25,000 per year. 3) Arguably this is what .org was originally all about. While .org domains aren't free, they're not particularly expensive either. 4) This is not about NGOs per-se. It's about communities, such as language and ethnic communities, looking to repeat the success of ".cat" by using a TLD to enhance their communications. Participants can include non-profits but these plans are also explicitly inclusive of for-profits, which still need help in the unbalanced playing field of developing economies.
Should NARALO also develop a position on this?
IMO, no. It will be considered by the AC/SO committee (I know, since I co-chair it) but will likely be dismissed as out of scope. Given the mandate and the stakeholder requests, Danny's proposal isn't simply out in left field -- it isn't even in the stadium. Of course he'd have found that out long ago had he bothered even a shred of participation before making the proposal. - Evan
I have now read Danny's paper and, on first look, I think it makes a lot of sense. I know we are all concerned with the projected costs of new GTLDs - why not support something like this? Gareth On 13-Jul-10, at 2:50 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
AI: Annalisa will draft a NARALO position paper on new gTLD and send it to the NARALO mailing list for comments.
In the meeting I had thought this merely meant a statement of support for the AFRALO statement on gTLD support for deserving applicants http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24jun10-en.htm
In inter-ISOC conversation Annalisa has set me straight - this paper is intended is to be "a similiar document in support of gTLD applicants in the North American Region who may be in need or who are deserving of support. "
Since the AFRALO statement was approved by ALAC it doesn't need further endorsement at the RALO level.
Subsequent to this conversation I then heard from reclusive Danny Younger noting that he has made an "end-run" proposal for a 'free' .ngo tld on the .int model. http://forum.icann.org/lists/joint-wg-snapshot/msg00000.html
Should NARALO also develop a position on this?
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org --------------------------------------------------------------- ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 14 July 2010 20:15, Gareth Shearman <shearman@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
I have now read Danny's paper and, on first look, I think it makes a lot of sense.
I know we are all concerned with the projected costs of new GTLDs - why not support something like this?
If the region wants to support it I will too, but Danny's paper says nothing about the cost of TLDs. The price of second-level domains is not at issue. At very least, his solution is clearly outside the mandate and scope of the working group. That's not to say it is without merit, but it is ill-conceived to address the challenge given to the WG. But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? - Evan
participants (4)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
ICANN At-Large Staff -
Joly MacFie