Carlton, I'm not sure how useful it will be to have persons on such short notice attend, as there is CSPAN and the written testimony, though as of today the documents and witness lists are still empty. What I wish ALAC had was a statement on issues of its concern which it was prepared to submit to inform the Subcommittee, regardless of its partisan composition, as the ALAC advice to the Board is not always observable in its effect informing the Board, and "the public interest does not end where the water begins", to borrow an American political metaphore, and all Advisory duties extinguished when the Chair or the CEO or the designated lobbyist reports to a national oversight body. Eric

...

I agree that it would be nice if we had something written to submit, since that goes in the record.

Some drafting points: o does the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237, apply? I think Michael Froomkin raised a central question back in 2000 [1], and it is answerable in the affirmative. From this, transparency requirements follow. o does the new gTLD program meet the competition policy goals of the White and Green Papers? I think the failure of the .net redelegation in 2004 was a warning signal, and the current proposed auto-renew for Verisign's properties confirms that the answer is no. o did the development of the new gTLD program provide a structural role for the public interest? As the GNSO exercises near total policy control over the gTLDs, and the public interest is structurally confined to the ALAC, and GAC, and separated from the GNSO, the answer is necessarily "no". o are any applications from the United States, e.g., an application by the Appalachian Regional Commission, qualified under the the "applicant support" project articulated in Nairobi? o What does the City of New York need to do to be allowed to proceed with its plan of record, which is to select a contractor to create the .nyc gTLD, and operate that gTLD? I need to think of ASN and v4 and v6 questions. Anything else? Eric [1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=252523 On 4/28/11 10:14 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

...

I'm not sure how useful it will be to have persons on such short notice attend, as there is CSPAN and the written testimony, though as of today the documents and witness lists are still empty.

There's no point in showing up unless you're invited to testify. Observers are just that, observers, and don't get to say anything.

I agree that it would be nice if we had something written to submit, since that goes in the record.

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

Many thanks.

From this list, seems like there's a hymnal to sing from, no?

============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams < ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

Colleagues,

There is still no hearing documentation.

The witness list has been posted:

Witness List

Kurt Pritz Senior Vice President, Stakeholder Relations ICANN

Mei-lan Stark Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property Fox Group Legal

Michael Palage President and CEO Pharos Global

Steven Metalitz Partner Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP

Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice

Joshua Bourne President CADNA

Source: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_05022011.html

Eric _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Neither the City Government nor the County Government have chosen to issue a request for tender and obtain competitive bids, so it really doesn't matter how badly it turns out, and as a larger principle, the NARALO could take a position on applications which do not rise to the level of a city pot hole service contract.

What I have heard is that the first-round was going to be closely to 300. I do not have any confirmation for this number though. -ed On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:

In today's oversight hearing, Kurt Pritz pegged the number of probable new first-round gTLDs at 200. This is a number lower than I recall having been mentioned before. Is my memory faulty, or is this a new development?

Also, I got the distinct impression that the congress-critters were asking ICANN to postpone Peter's planned "party" as further oversight hearings may be required.

Curious to know what other impressions the folks on this list came away with... ------ 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.

200 applications is a 'low-activity' scenario in ICANN planning documents, and 400 applications is the 'expected case' scenario Note that this is applications, not strings. As the hearing was looking at how many strings might end up in the root the number of applications (whatever it is) needs to be reduced for two factors: 1. Some applications will fail; and 2. Some strings will have multiple applications (e.g. there might be 10 applications for WEB) Based on my interactions with the applicant community I think we'll end up with 200 to 300 new TLDs in the root over the next 12 to 24 months - so about a doubling of what we have now. The most unpredictable variable in this is 'brand' TLDs (like .NOKIA). Estimates vary widely on how many of these we'll see With respect to postponing a June 20 decision I don't think there's any new information on the table, so I think a decision should be made in June -- Lets proceed, or lets drop the program - but lets make a decision. If we proceed, as I think we should, we have an ongoing ability to adjust things like trademark RPMs. There's only one substantive thing the trademark community are asking for that isn't already in the Guidebook -- the GPML (Globally Protected Marks List). For all the reasons documented over the last 2 years the GPML is bad policy (note: not even the GAC supports it). Apart from this GPML the trademark lobby have been given all the substantive things they've demanded (in some cases more - e.g. the STI and IRT recommended implementation of either a Sunrise or a Claims period but the Guidebook now makes both of them mandatory). Bottom line is that new TLDs will be immeasurably safer places for trademarks than existing TLDs. Richard On May 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Danny Younger wrote:

In today's oversight hearing, Kurt Pritz pegged the number of probable new first-round gTLDs at 200. This is a number lower than I recall having been mentioned before. Is my memory faulty, or is this a new development?

Also, I got the distinct impression that the congress-critters were asking ICANN to postpone Peter's planned "party" as further oversight hearings may be required.

Curious to know what other impressions the folks on this list came away with... ------ 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 ------

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/congress-to-icann-no-you-can-t-20110504 http://www.thedomains.com/2011/05/04/from-house-hearing-icann-domainers-are-... The submitted written testimony may be found here: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_05022011.html -- click on the name of each witness to obtain their prepared remarks