[governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now
Edmon
mail at edmon.asia
Wed Feb 23 19:31:11 EST 2011
Hi Avri,
I agree with most of what you said. However, it seems to me that the
characterization of "their type of application should go first and everyone
else should just get out of their way" may not be the best argument for IDN
gTLDs. And just because we have IDN ccTLDs does not mean the same thing as
IDN gTLDs. In fact, on the contrary, because of the introduction of IDN
ccTLDs, there is growing user expectation that there be IDN gTLDs.
What seems to me to be at the forefront of the issue (of whether we can give
IDN gTLDs some priority) are 2 items:
1. There are people who worry that if IDN gTLDs were released, it would
release the pressure on ICANN to release the full new gTLD process. That is
an anxiety we need to dissipate. I think regardless, the full new gTLD
process should be introduced asap.
2. I wonder if can get a sense of those who have reservations about the
current proposed new gTLD implementation, including those pointing to the
"cost-benefit" analysis argument, and ask the question of IDN gTLDs could be
introduced now based on what is already in place, and see what the answers
would be...
Again, the above being said, I still believe that the top priority would be
to launch the full new gTLD process.
Edmon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:02 AM
> To: IGC
> Subject: Re: [governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list