Hi, I disagree that Kurt was conveying a meaning of Complete Consensus when he referred to ICANN Consensus. He was quite specific about the rough and tumble of ICANN consensus and even made reference to the NCUC, whose members were the only ones that did not support the policy recommendation at the time it was approved. I note that although they did not prevail in the consensus and were part of the losing voice, they have since supported the ICANN consensus decision made against their vote. I agree that the ALAC deserves a real response to its advice, and when ALAC says something is unacceptable, there should be a process, I beleive one that is similar to that accorded GAC advice, to discuss and close the issue. And I find it problematic that the Board has never discussed these issues with the ALAC (I am assuming they haven't since I don't really know - did they? Was it ever part of the BOARD-ALAC regular face to face discussions? Did we formally request further dialogue on the At-Large issues? GAC did not get it negotiations automatically as far as I know). As for the new gTLDs themselves. I personally support them going forward now, warts and all, and would not support a letter from this RALO or from ALAC stating that At-Large opposes new gTLDs. I think the task now is to make sure they happen fairly and live up to all the promises. And to fix what we can along the way and for the next round. I would support a letter that laid out the complexities and the differences of opinion. Unless there is an At-Large decision against new gTLDs according to its processes for such a major decision or advice, I would find it hard to accept that as the voice of the users; as hard as I found accepting Dyson's claims to being the USERS' representative. I could also personally support a letter that included any changes ALAC advises would make the new gTLD process better, kind of like they did with JAS. One take way I had from the meeting was that those who were objecting to the new gTLD program were missing the fact that many of the protections that exist in the new gTLD process that do not exist in the incumbent gTLDs (would that they did!). I think Senators and those who testify should be better educated about their subject manner. For example I found it amazing that those seeking defense from new gTLD in their name, did not admit to the existence of the Independent Objector, who could take their issue forward if someone was applying for their name fraudulently. All of the Charitable and Service NGOs could use this avenue as well as the good services of their GAC representative who could bring GAC consensus into supporting their cause, when just. E.g. I am certain that if a group of pedophiles where to apply for YMCA, the US GAC representative would make sure that it did not go forward, it might even fail the first test on the applicant-check. So they have lots of avenues for redress without having to resort to a too-high* Formal Objection fee. I hope ICANN releases and sends to the Committee a point by point refutation of the negative points made in testimony - showing the mechanisms that have been created to address the particular concerns (e.g. application question 18c in response to defensive second level registration issues). Kurt needs to have a much more complete set of talking points; the process is complex and it is difficult to remember the remedy that was created for each of the hundreds of criticisms that have ben made. And if this were on line, it would be great for them to have a placard showing the url and a QR. Could even be updated real time by the ICANN boiler room in the background. avri * And yes, all of the fees are absurdly high. But what can you do in a world controlled by bean counters. PS: It was like IDNs did not exist and where not an important motivation for new gTLDs - then again it was an US Senate Committee. On 8 Dec 2011, at 19:21, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:

Beau - Kurt did cite the multi-stakeholder model, unfortunately the way he cited it made is sound as if all the constituent groups were 100% on board with the way things are going, glossing over various concerns, questions, and protests. -Garth

-------------------------------------------------- From: "Beau Brendler" <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:24 PM To: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.ie>; "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> Cc: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs

...

I've done it before -- you have to be invited. If you are not a US citizen you can refuse if called. However the issue is getting the message heard. Hearings are tightly scripted and you don't just get the chance to get up and make a statement, it's not like an ICANN free for all.

I agree that we should make a statement, and would be happy to author one for NARALO, providing we can actually come to a rough consensus as to what to say. Not everyone agrees with the current sentiment against new gTLDs.

That said, if we can create a statement with consensus, since we are a part of ICANN, we could, I should think, compel ICANN's lobbyist (whoever their VP of government affairs is now) to present the statement on our behalf, even if it goes against ICANN's party line.

The other question to ask is, did Kurt do his due multi-stakeholder diligence and actually ask what policy position(s) should be presented? Did Olivier know anything about this in advance and was he consulted? One would think that the U.S. Congress would be interested in what the end-user community might think...

All that said, we could probably also submit a statement that would be taken seriously via John D. Rockefeller's office. I have, shall we say, discussed consumer issues with them before.

-----Original Message-----

...

From: "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@blacknight.ie> Sent: Dec 8, 2011 3:37 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs

Evan

They've had non-US witnesses at past hearings if my memory serves me

Regards

Michele

Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 8 Dec 2011, at 14:59, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org> wrote:

...

Hello all,

This morning, the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing on the ICANN new gTLD program.

The web page describing the hearing, which includes a video of the entire 90-minute session, is at http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH I am told that it will soon be uploaded to the Committee's YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/SenateCommercePress

Among the speakers are

- Kurt Pritz, ICANN VP - Dan Jaffe of the Association of National Advertisers who is trying to block the new gTLD program - Fiona Alexander with the US NTIA - Angela Williams of the US YMCA (speaking after deliberation with ICANN's Non-Profit Organization Constituency) - Esther Dyson, former ICANN Board member (and ALAC member from the pre-RALO days when ALAC was all-appointed)

It's VERY interesting listening. Kurt's message -- that adequate protections are in place in the program to deter large amounts of money spent on defensive registrations -- was not well received. In contrast, the committee heard about several instances -- in some cases by the Senators themselves -- who were the victims of cybersquatting and domain speculators. All other speakers were critical of the program and some were even asking if the US government has the authority to block the roll-out from happening in January as ICANN intends.

Interesting note amongst the comments... many orgs have found themselves needing to but defencive registrations in .XXX and are livid at the thought of having to do a bunch more for future TLDs. (For instance, Indiana University has purchased "hoosiers.xxx").

Of note to us.... much was made by Kurt of the consensus between stakeholders. Dan shot that down in relation to business users and Angela said the NPOC wasn't allowed to become a real stakeholder in time to have an impact on decisions already made. Esther made mention at the end that the real constituency not yet heard from (at least by the Senators) was the billions of Internet end users. Mention was made that the committee now needs to hear from them.

Sounds like an opportunity to me.

Now... I don't know if one has to be a US citizen to testify; if not the ICANN Chair or vice chairs (of which I am one) would all be good candidates and in fact the international character of ALAC sends a useful message IMO. But if the requirement is to be a US resident, I have complete and utter faith that NARALO's own leadership includes people (Beau, Ganesh, Eduardo) who could easily step into the role and do the community proud.

Further to this, I would like to raise the issue as an agenda item on Monday's NARALO call and I would like us to consider letting the Committee know that there is indeed a group within ICANN that exists to provide the voice of Internet end-users,

Thank you.

- Evan ------ 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 ------

------ 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 ------

So if not a new statement, perhaps a reminder(strongly) of what ALAC has already said for the new audience at these hearings. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Sender: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:39:55 To: Avri Doria<avri@ella.com> Cc: NARALO Discussion List<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs On 9 December 2011 11:38, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:

I disagree that Kurt was conveying a meaning of Complete Consensus when he referred to ICANN Consensus. He was quite specific about the rough and tumble of ICANN consensus and even made reference to the NCUC, whose members were the only ones that did not support the policy recommendation at the time it was approved. I note that although they did not prevail in the consensus and were part of the losing voice, they have since supported the ICANN consensus decision made against their vote.

So the NCUC was opposed. ALAC was opposed (see below). The GAC was opposed. The IPC was opposed, and clearly not appeased by the IRT and STI efforts. And the CADNA/ANA opposition indicates that either ICANN's business community was opposed, or that it is unrepresentative of the broader business community (perhaps because it is an umbrella that equally includes both domainers and Internet content providers.) So the "consensus" essentially is a power decision dominated by contracted parties who benefit financially from the program going forward. I believe that point came out clearly during the hearings, and Garth extracted one particularly interesting observation (stated earlier in this thread) that helps confirm the perception. I agree that the ALAC deserves a real response to its advice, and when ALAC

says something is unacceptable, there should be a process, I beleive one that is similar to that accorded GAC advice, to discuss and close the issue.

I don't think the GAC would agree that they are satisfied with their treatment within ICANN wrt the gTLD process, so even the mere formality of a bylaw-mandated response is not IMO sufficient for either the GAC or ALAC. The brinksmanship that characterized the emergency Brussels GAC/Staff meeting hardly qualifies as a process I want repeated as a matter of course.

And I find it problematic that the Board has never discussed these issues with the ALAC (I am assuming they haven't since I don't really know - did they? Was it ever part of the BOARD-ALAC regular face to face discussions? Did we formally request further dialogue on the At-Large issues? GAC did not get it negotiations automatically as far as I know).

Previously, most scheduled ALAC/Board events have been bridge building affairs, shared meals (complete with seating assignments!) in which big-picture topics have been raised as table talk -- no mandated outcomes. That is changing, for the better. The two big milestones in the Board/ALAC relationship are to me: - The election of Sebastien (though the Board never gave the community a suitable response of why it rejected its own BGC recommendation for two At-Large reps.) - The gTLD "workshop" in Nairobi in which Kurt talked about a broad consensus, inclusive of end-users, and I put an end to that myth. In response, there was a hastily called meeting between some Board and ALAC members the next day that -- if my memory serves me correctly -- led to the creation of the JAS working group, the first ever in which both the ALAC and GNSO shared chartering roles. These are both relatively recent events. We have certainly evolved from being ignored to being acknowledged and increasingly respected. The current challenge is going from acknowledgement and respect to being heeded. As for the new gTLDs themselves. I personally support them going forward

now, warts and all, and would not support a letter from this RALO or from ALAC stating that At-Large opposes new gTLDs. I think the task now is to make sure they happen fairly and live up to all the promises. And to fix what we can along the way and for the next round.

As I have mentioned before, the still-current ALAC position -- stated originally at the Mexico City Summit and never since recanted or modified -- indicates that At-Large considers the gTLD program to be "unacceptable". As you know, a scorecard I recently did for the At-Large gTLD Working Group indicates that -- from the At-Large point of view -- most of our objections have not been addressed and in one case the situation has indeed worsened. So no letter is required from NARALO to (re)state the existing position that the program in its current form is unacceptable, since that stance is the status quo. I would similarly oppose any letter from NARALO changing this stance -- endorsing the program and/or encouraging it to proceed as-is. We can acknowledge that the program will happen regardless of our objections -- and that it will be helpful in some specific cases, notably IDNs -- but that doesn't mean we have to be cheerleaders for it. It is my personal view that At-Large members' participation in gTLD-related community activities (notably the Rec6 and JAS working groups) have been acts of mitigating the damage we envisioned the program would cause -- and I note that in both cases, the ultimate policy outcomes are not what those committees asked for and only partially address At-Large objections. Such participation IMO in no way mitigates the core opposition that still exists on the record. One take way I had from the meeting was that those who were objecting to

the new gTLD program were missing the fact that many of the protections that exist in the new gTLD process that do not exist in the incumbent gTLDs (would that they did!).

There was, however a view expressed that ICANN has been remiss in policing the looser regulations of the existing TLDs, so its ability to ramp-up a competent compliance effort based on past performance was legitimately called into question. This is a case of good theory, unstable execution. And there's no way to test ICANN's capabilities on a small sample of TLDs because there are no provisions for staggering or future rounds.

I think Senators and those who testify should be better educated about their subject manner. For example I found it amazing that those seeking defense from new gTLD in their name, did not admit to the existence of the Independent Objector, who could take their issue forward if someone was applying for their name fraudulently.

The IO does not have any authority on second level domains IIRC, which was the main focal point of the senators' complaints. And, in any case, the IO will still need to pay appropriate fees to object and IIRC will have a fixed budget... so at a certain point there may be a hidden limit to how many objections may be filed that way.

I hope ICANN releases and sends to the Committee a point by point refutation of the negative points made in testimony - showing the mechanisms that have been created to address the particular concerns (e.g. application question 18c in response to defensive second level registration issues). Kurt needs to have a much more complete set of talking points; the process is complex and it is difficult to remember the remedy that was created for each of the hundreds of criticisms that have ben made. And if this were on line, it would be great for them to have a placard showing the url and a QR. Could even be updated real time by the ICANN boiler room in the background.

For every talking point you could think of for Kurt, I could come up with more for Esther and Angela. And there are plenty of objections that have no legitimate existing response, such as "why isn't the fee reduced for non profits in poor countries, let alone rich ones"? The convoluted "fund" proposal that was pre-determined before the JAS group made its recommendations does not indicate the result of either a consensus or bottom up process. At least to me ... the more time passes and the more I am learn about its environment, the worse the gTLD program looks. - Evan ------ 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 on this. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote: I think Senators and those who testify should be better educated about

their subject manner. For example I found it amazing that those seeking defense from new gTLD in their name, did not admit to the existence of the Independent Objector, who could take their issue forward if someone was applying for their name fraudulently. All of the Charitable and Service NGOs could use this avenue as well as the good services of their GAC representative who could bring GAC consensus into supporting their cause, when just. E.g. I am certain that if a group of pedophiles where to apply for YMCA, the US GAC representative would make sure that it did not go forward, it might even fail the first test on the applicant-check. So they have lots of avenues for redress without having to resort to a too-high* Formal Objection fee.

I hope ICANN releases and sends to the Committee a point by point refutation of the negative points made in testimony - showing the mechanisms that have been created to address the particular concerns (e.g. application question 18c in response to defensive second level registration issues).

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

Ok, here's the problem. The multistakeholder consensus was contingent on those overall improvements in ICANN’s accountability and transparency to the global Internet community - and what has come now is backtracking by the Registrars and a complete lack of transparency in that decision process. -------------------------------------------------- From: "Joly MacFie" <joly@punkcast.com> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 1:07 AM To: "Avri Doria" <avri@ella.com> Cc: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs

As noted<http://www.mindsandmachines.com/2011/12/u-s-government-strongly-affirms-icann-model-and-new-gtlds/>by Anthony Van Couvering. Larry Strickling was also talking on Thursday, across town.

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2011/remarks-assistant-secretary-str...

Here's an excerpt:

For example, at ICANN, a multistakeholder process that ran for six years

...

resulted in the approval last summer of an expansion of top level domains. This process involved global stakeholders from the business community, civil society, registries, registrars, and governments. At NTIA, we worked throughout the process to make sure that ICANN adequately addressed government concerns and we have also spent significant time the last two years pushing for overall improvements in ICANN’s accountability and transparency to the global Internet community.

...

Nonetheless, we are now seeing parties that did not like the outcome of that multistakeholder process trying to collaterally attack the outcome and seek unilateral action by the U.S. government to overturn or delay the product of a six-year multistakeholder process that engaged folks from all over the world. The multistakeholder process does not guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome. But it is critical to preserving the model of Internet governance that has been so successful to date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the outcome once a decision is reached. When parties ask us to overturn the outcomes of these processes, no matter how well-intentioned the request, they are providing “ammunition” to other countries who attempt to justify their unilateral actions to deny their citizens the free flow of information on the Internet. This we will not do. There is too much at stake here.

...

But we are sensitive to the concerns being raised by some companies about the introduction of new gTLDs. Today, Chairman Rockefeller held an important oversight hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on the subject of how ICANN will expand top level domains. We agree with the Chairman’s concerns over how this program will be implemented and its potential negative effect if not implemented properly. We will closely monitor the execution of the program and are committed to working with stakeholders, including U.S. industry, to mitigate any unintended consequences.

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ 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 agree that the accountability and transparency still has a long ways to go. But I think it has improved and is improving - albeit too slowly. So I agree that is something we definitely have to keep pushing on. Make them live up to the promises made.

Agreed, so long as we're saying that they still need to fix the A and T first, then do other stuff. There are plenty of nice people working at ICANN, but as an institution it has a great deal of trouble doing what it says it's going to do, for anything that doesn't lead directly to revenue. R's, John

The feeling I keep getting is that the A&T and other reform kind of stuff is ready to be given to us .... AFTER the gTLD goldrush is dome, after all the bad consequences are in place, and we can then have a wonderfully transparent (and associatedly long, inconclusive and probably gamed) process for cleaning up the mess. - Evan On 12 December 2011 10:11, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:

...

I agree that the accountability and transparency still has a long ways to go. But I think it has improved and is improving - albeit too slowly. So I agree that is something we definitely have to keep pushing on. Make them live up to the promises made.

Agreed, so long as we're saying that they still need to fix the A and T first, then do other stuff. There are plenty of nice people working at ICANN, but as an institution it has a great deal of trouble doing what it says it's going to do, for anything that doesn't lead directly to revenue.

R's, John ------ 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 ------

Op-Ed in the Washington Post yesterday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-rush/2011/12/09/gIQA5Ms9nO_... What’s the .rush? By Editorial Board, Published: December 11 FOR TWO decades, .com, .org and some 20 other “generic top-level domain names” have served as calling cards for the vast majority of Web sites. That may change dramatically — and not for the better — if the obscure but powerful organization that manages domain names gets its way. Starting next month, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) plans to take applications from individuals and groups interested in plunking down $185,000 a pop to buy the rights to new domain names — the words to the right of the dot. Some of these could focus on a community of businesses or services, such as .bank or .news. Others may be used to market specific brands or products, as in .Coke or .Chevy. ICANN officials say that they expect up to 500 applications to be filed between January and April when the organization opens the process; those approved would go live in 2013. ICANN believes these changes will lead to innovations that build on the already explosive growth and inventiveness of the Internet age. Businesses, nonprofits and law enforcement officials take a dimmer view. “A potential disaster,” declared Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz during a congressional hearing last week. An invitation to extortion, cried a coalition of businesses. A crippling blow, warned a group of nonprofits. Mr. Leibowitz worries that the proliferation of names will increase the incidence of fraud; ICANN’s error-riddled database of Web site and domain name owners, he testified, already makes it difficult to track down scammers. Businesses say that they will be forced to spend millions in “defensive registrations” to prevent interlopers from claiming their brand or product names; the new addresses, they say, will duplicate existing sites and cause confusion. Nonprofits say that they cannot afford the stiff fees. Representatives from these groups aired their complaints during a Senate hearing Thursday — not that lawmakers have any power to resolve the controversy. ICANN reports to no one — a decision made when the group was created during the Clinton administration to protect Internet independence. The group has made some adjustments in response to concerns, including creation of a trademark clearinghouse and a “rapid response” process to allow legitimate rights holders to quickly knock out imposters. Officials have said that some nonprofits may be permitted to pay lower fees. Although the plan has been six years in the making, it is not ready for prime time. ICANN officials acknowledge that they are still working out some details, including certain protections for trademark holders. The Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns about enforcement. ICANN should not approve new names until enforcement and protection issues are resolved. Even then, it should approve at most a few, to allow the marketplace to absorb and weigh the changes. ICANN would be wise to move slowly; its legitimacy and Internet efficacy are at stake. --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -