[governance] A workable, gTLDs process, now
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Feb 24 01:16:44 EST 2011
H Edmon,
As you know I very much support the introduction of IDN gGTLDs and was pushing for them to come out at the same time as the IDN ccTLDS, until we lost that battle. And I know that for the most part gTLDs and ccTLDs are different - though if you look as some ccTLDs you would be hard pressed to find that difference (clue: its that gTLDs have at least some regulation).
I have just not found a convincing reason why IDN gTLDS should go first to the detriment of other gTLDS. And anything that goes first, does push back everything else.
As for cost-benefit analysis of introducing new gTDLs, I look more for social utility of the new gTLDs and the plans people have for them in terms of building community, than I look at how much money someone somewhere may make and someone somewhere else will lose. And yes, I realize that for many, new gTDS is all about money. Perhaps I should be favoring that those with community support should come first, but then in true ICANN tradition that would be played and there is always the problem that one person's social utility is another person's silliness or worse.
But I will admit, my characterization of _everyone_ who supports prioritization of one type of gTLD over others as someone in a race pushing everyone else out of their way was a bit of a generalization and somewhat rude. And I apologize to you for that.
a.
On 24 Feb 2011, at 01:31, Edmon wrote:
> 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
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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