[governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now

[Lee W McKnight]

Chris,

Your suggested approach makes a lot of sense to me; back in the day we had suggested something similar but less nuanced originally ie a 2-track process. 

The challenge in tracks is that comemrcial interests will seek to masquerade as public interest-type gtld applications, to avoid fees/accelerate market entry; but some safeguards can be put in place.

With regard to the vertical integration issue snuck in by...special interests; or should I say added by the expert judgment of omniscient/incorruptible ICANN staff working with the GNSO....smells like the good old non-transparent/non-objective  ICANN is still at work. 

And what a shock, those same folks didn't find your comments worthy of even a footnote.

Anyway, good luck, have fun and make some noise.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of CW Mail [mail at christopherwilkinson.eu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:20 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: CW Mail
Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now

Good evening:

As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week
in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD
process.
For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following
line:

1.      To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN
applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/
cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest.
        Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct
process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues
can be considered; i.e. postpone.
        Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported
provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy,
subject to public consultation .i.e. not to postpone, but they will
take longer.

2.      Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would
lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for
some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers:

        http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf

        In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new gTLD
process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries
has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been
a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate
as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No.

I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated:
Governance, At Large, ISOC.

With regards to you all,

CW







____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t