Note that I am speaking rather strongly on behalf of NA-RALO here, on the basis of this position as we discussed in our most recent NA conference call. BB -----Original Message----- From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:25 AM To: 'Patrick Vande Walle'; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: RE: Draft New gTLD statement Thanks, Patrick. You wrote: "The Euralo statement includes a sentence that says "ICANN should launch the process with no further delay." I leave it up to the chair to decide how to move forward with this now. This statement is in direct opposition to the NA-RALO position and we will not support it. Further, we do not believe consistency with past ALAC statements is a particularly important criteria. Thanks for sending this. BB -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Vande Walle [mailto:patrick@vande-walle.eu] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:32 AM To: Brendler, Beau; Cheryl Langdon-Orr Subject: Re: Draft New gTLD statement [Taken Nick out of the discussion] --Patrick I did not hear strong oppositions from the Euralo community to the draft gTLD statement that we received yesterday. The Euralo community will forward to the ALAC a series of comments that it would like to see included as an appendix to main ALAC comments. I guess the other RALOs may want to do this, too. The Euralo statement includes a sentence that says "ICANN should launch the process with no further delay" and would like to see this statement included in the main ALAC statement. I am aware some people think the whole process should be stopped, or at least suspended. On the other hand, advising ICANN to go forward with the process would certainly be in continuity of all previous ALAC statements. Best, Patrick *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
Bret Fausett wrote:
Brendler, Beau wrote:
This statement is in direct opposition to the NA-RALO position and we will not support it.
What was the NA-RALO position? Do we have something in writing or, if not, can you give me a quick summary?
From the minutes of this month's conference call: (https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_january_2009)
- Do we want to take a stand, as a region, on this? Beau has already taken the stand that he is not opposed to the new gTLD process per se but ICANN needs to get its house in order before this can happen.This brings up two questions:What advice should ALAC give to the board on the process?What other concerns should ALAC be voicing also? Danny mentioned that we (and other constituencies) have all kinds of concerns that need to be addressed before ICANN can accept a large number of TLDs.Perhaps if just a limited number of TLDs (maybe about 12 to 20) were accepted per year it might work but if a whole deluge came in at once it would be problematic.Everybody seemed happy with this approach and were in agreement with Danny and Beau.
It was noted that Beau had the support from the entire NARALO region.It was noted that this must be kept separate from IDN TLDs.We need to make sure that Beau’s concerns (as per the document he has written) are incorporated into any ALAC statement.Beau and Alan will bring this forward at the ALAC meeting tomorrow with the region’s support
- Evan
Basically, it's that we would support a limited number of new gTLDs moving forward, especially from those who have already spent a lot of time and money on the process -- but not more than 25. We believe the process should be halted until ICANN better gets its "house in order" on contractual compliance, security and stability, and internal capacity before going forward with hundreds of new gTLDs. You may find the attached working document (which is new) to be helpful as well, since there are two issues: The overarching new gTLD question, and secondarily, the guidebook for implementation. The Europeans, if I read Patrick's note correctly, agree with us on the guidbook implementation specifics, but not on halting the process. -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:32 PM To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: Draft New gTLD statement Brendler, Beau wrote:
This statement is in direct opposition to the NA-RALO position and we will not support it.
What was the NA-RALO position? Do we have something in writing or, if not, can you give me a quick summary? -- Bret *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
participants (3)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Bret Fausett -
Evan Leibovitch