Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello, This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting. This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community. We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role. As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly. - Evan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined; WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened; WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient; WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund; WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round; and WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs; RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented.
2nd to your motion ________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs Hello, This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting. This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community. We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role. As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly. - Evan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined; WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened; WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient; WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund; WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round; and WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs; RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------
I would oppose the motion. I support the new gTLD program, warts and all, over continued stalling. I believe it is in the public interest to have more options (character sets, strings, jurisdictions, registries) and more competition in gTLD space. --Wendy On 12/18/2011 11:14 PM, RJ Glass wrote:
2nd to your motion
________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------ ------ 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 ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
Wendy I agree with you on this => absolutely... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 19 December 2011 22:47, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
I would oppose the motion. I support the new gTLD program, warts and all, over continued stalling. I believe it is in the public interest to have more options (character sets, strings, jurisdictions, registries) and more competition in gTLD space.
--Wendy
On 12/18/2011 11:14 PM, RJ Glass wrote:
2nd to your motion
________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate
in
the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------ ------ 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 ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ ------ 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 ------
I personally agree with Wendy's view on this, but I will poll my ALS members and see if there's strong feeling either way. I also agreed with Sebastien's comment at the vote - that the second round should have been scheduled ahead of time to ensure orderly progress. Here in NYC we have a vibrant young startup community and I surmise that many are keen to explore the opportunities that TLD expansion might provide, including a city tld. j On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
I would oppose the motion. I support the new gTLD program, warts and all, over continued stalling. I believe it is in the public interest to have more options (character sets, strings, jurisdictions, registries) and more competition in gTLD space.
--Wendy
On 12/18/2011 11:14 PM, RJ Glass wrote:
2nd to your motion
________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate
in
the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------ ------ 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 ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ ------ 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 ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -
I second! It's important for NARALO to interveine to express the point of view of public interest. We would like the ICANN to focus first on Country Code (ccTLD), Regions, Cities, Linguistic and Cultural before Brandnames. I would like ICANN to be more consistent with it's public interest duties, but WE will need more competition in the gTLD actual narrow wardrobe! Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org Le 2011-12-19 06:47, Wendy Seltzer a écrit :
I would oppose the motion. I support the new gTLD program, warts and all, over continued stalling. I believe it is in the public interest to have more options (character sets, strings, jurisdictions, registries) and more competition in gTLD space.
--Wendy
On 12/18/2011 11:14 PM, RJ Glass wrote:
2nd to your motion
________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch<evan@telly.org> To: NARALO Discussion List<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------ ------ 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 ------
+1 from me. I have not seen anyone on this list OPPOSED to new gTLDs, to keep saying comments, corrections, concerns, and questions about the program is not opposition. To keep saying folks here want to stop the program is fallacious. In reference to Wendy's comment about competition; competition in this market is an illusion while 5 Registrars control half the accreditations through shell companies. The unknown influence these Registrars have within ICANN is unchanged by policies set forth in the new gTLD program. If ICANN wants continued support of its agenda from At-Large, it needs to recognize At-Large's advice. If ALAC gets steamrolled during a critical phase like this it will get steamrolled on much smaller issues. It would be a mistake for the U.S. gov't to reassert control of the 'Net after approving privatization already, it's not going to happen and any statement by ALAC would not reverse the movement. This is about the organization keeping its promises. This is the letter from the US FTC chairman to ICANN issued on Friday: http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/publicltrs/111216letter-to-icann.pdf. It basically says what Evan is saying: advice has been ignored and promised protections have not been implemented. If one only listens to Kurt Pritz's testimony they might think that all outstanding questions have been addressed and this is why the program is moving forward on schedule. Clearly, this is not the whole story. -------------------------------------------------- From: "RJ Glass" <jipshida2@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:14 PM To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>; "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
2nd to your motion
________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> To: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:34 PM Subject: [NA-Discuss] Notice of Motion: update to ALAC advice on gTLDs
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------ ------ 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 ------
I'll put this to my ALS Board, possibly tonight. I suspect this will generate some discussion. Gordon On Sun, 2011-12-18 at 13:34 -0500, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------
We should have considered a statement like this BEFORE the whole program was approved. I am "pro" more options in the Internet. -ed On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello,
This message is to announce my intention to move this motion at the *JANUARY* ALAC meeting.
This is being done in order to enable discussion to take place -- within ALAC, its gTLD working group, and the RALOs -- to determine the response to this issue which has been IMO simmering throughout the At-Large community.
We are told by many (and officially by ICANN) that the program is set and we should stop complaining, But to refuse to express the point of view of the public interest within ICANN -- even if it is contrary to the predominant wisdom -- if to fail at the very basics of At-Large's bylaw-mandated role.
As one of the ALAC representatives for North America it is important for me to know the NARALO sentiment. As the proposer of this motion I guess my own point of view is laid bare; but if the region is mostly against it I will act accordingly.
- Evan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS end-users and governments have only been invited to participate in the new gTLD program long after its foundation principles were determined;
WHEREAS most of the problems identified by the ALAC in its Mexico City Summit declaration related to the new-gTLD program have not been satisfactorily addressed and indeed some have worsened;
WHEREAS numerous complaints from governments, intergovernmental organizations and other bodies have indicated that law enforcement and public-protection measures in the current design of the gTLD program are insufficient;
WHEREAS the ICANN Board, without explanation, has refused the cross-community endorsement of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group recommendations to reduce costs of new gTLD in developing economies independent of any fixed fund;
WHEREAS the absence of a staggered release schedule or a fixed timetable for future rounds severely inhibits ICANN's ability to correct mistakes in the proposed application round;
and
WHEREAS ICANN has still not convincingly demonstrated the end-user need or benefit of a simultaneous launch of hundreds of new TLDs;
RESOLVED THAT the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) convey to the ICANN Board and community the dissatisfaction of At-Large with the new gTLD program in its current form, and explicitly advises that its implementation would be harmful to the public interest. We request that implementation of the program be suspended until necessary public-interest modifications are implemented. ------ 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 ------
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
participants (9)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com -
Gordon Chillcott -
Houle Louis -
Joly MacFie -
RJ Glass -
Wendy Seltzer