[governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I have a resoundingly strong disagreement with both of these points.

No need to start separating out the crowd into who goes first and who goes next - a lottery will take care of that.  Also there are already nearly as many IDN (of the cc persuasion) as there are gTLDs.  No need to give them special preference.  As soon as we start talking about separating applications, someone starts claiming that of course their type of application should go first and everyone else should just get out of their way.

And the Vertical Integration policy has just the right amount of competition authority in it to be safe for consumers.  the plan that the board accepted was well thought out, had the support com economist expereince in comptetions authorities and was hated by almost everyone in the GNSO.

Also there are plenty of safe guards in the process now, though some need tweaking perhaps to please the GAC.  sure it isn't perfect.  But a lot of work has been done to cover as much as could be thought of.  I think some of the stuff was poorly designed, but by and large the program is ready to go.  And except for those for whom no program will ever be good enough it isn't going to get all that much better.   

Of course being human, I think it could be a little better. The only changes I hope they make are:

-  to allow governments  to enter the objection process for free, and to allow applicants who must respond to them to respond for free

- to make the independent objector transparent and require a real named external objection.  This process should be free for both the person bringing the objection and the respondent.

- to drop the fee for those meeting the need criteria being established by the WG working on it.  The GNSO policy recommendations that this process is built upon said that different applications could pay different fee levels as long as overall the applications process was self funding.  And while  the idea of padding the cost of applications with  possible legal risk funding is wrong in any case, it is a moral outrage in the case of applicants from developing economies.   thee is not reason the people from developing countries should be paying for the fact that ICANN is located in litigious USA, a country full of very very expensive lawyers. the new gTLD program does not need to fund its lawyer security fund on the backs of  applicants from developing economies.

cheers,

a.

On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:20, CW Mail wrote:

> 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