[ALAC] [NA-Discuss] "What's At Stake" gTLD conference
evan at telly.org
Thu Oct 20 22:23:22 UTC 2011
It's seeming highly likely that numerous issues -- notably the issue of
applicant support in developing countries -- may demand a committment to
The ICANN Board committed at the last meeting to establishing a fund -- and
seeding that fund with $2M -- for this purpose. Notwithstanding
community (ie, GNSO, GAC and ALAC, expressed through the JAS WG report)
concerns about the validity of this as an effective tactic, it exists as a
And there is no way on earth that an independent foundation to administer
such a fund could be enabled in time to form and have its personnel,
structure and funding ready for this winter's round. So one may discern that
event back in Singapore, the Board envisioned a subsequent round while it
enabled this one.
Plenty of details and community fedeback is left TBD, but the collective
mindset of the Board seemed clear.
Timing? No clue. I'm quite happy with "it's ready when it's ready", a theme
that has driven most Internet innovation these days.
PS: Having worked deeply in the Linux community during the height of
Microsoft's intense opposition to anything open source, I think I have a
well developed sense of the difference between FUD, legitimate concern and
petty rumor-mongering. Little of what we've seen here is FUD, and it's no
surprise that different advisors offer different advice.
Indeed, these days I'm far more concerned with reverse-FUD (ratings agencies
saying everything is fine when indeed there SHOULD be fear) than the
On 20 October 2011 17:10, Antony Van Couvering <avc at avc.vc> wrote:
> FUD sucks and hurts everyone and there's far too much of it in this
> industry. On the other hand, ignoring reality isn't very helpful either.
> Looking at the realities of ICANN's processes, the studies that the GAC
> wants done *after* all new TLDs have been in operation for a while, etc. --
> what do people here think is a reasonable estimate for when Round 2 happens?
> I'm asked by potential clients, "When will we see Round 2"? What should I
> I don't say "now or never," but I do tell them I don't think we'll see a
> new round for at least a few years -- which is my honest best guess.
> Furthermore, if they have a common trademark like "United," a competing
> application from another "united" trademark holder is perfectly possible in
> this round. If they have a coined, unique name like "Xerox" then they can
> easily wait for Round 2 or 3 or whenever. So the impetus to apply in this
> round is different for different brand holders.
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
> > Bret
> > I've been hearing the same thing from quite a few people - including
> potential applicants for this round.
> > Personally I'd hate to see the good and positive aspects of new Tlds
> being overshadowed by FUD being touted as "advice" by some of the new tld
> > Regards
> > Michele
> > Mr. Michele Neylon
> > Blacknight
> > http://Blacknight.tel <http://blacknight.tel/>
> > Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity
> > On 20 Oct 2011, at 21:35, "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
> >> I really liked the idea that ICANN announce now when it will have the
> next open application window as a way to take pressure off this round. The
> "now or never" idea that a lot of consultants and back-end registries are
> pitching is both factually wrong and, I think, detrimental to the process.
> Scaring people into operating Internet infrastructure won't be good for
> anyone, including the company that receives the delegation of something it
> wasn't really sure it wanted anyway. "Now or never" also will substantially
> increase the number of applications, which will complicate the evaluation
> and launch process.
> >> I'd like to see ICANN announce now that it will open another application
> window in January, 2013. That would give the companies sitting on the fence
> comfort that they won't be left out, and we all will be able to see whether
> what comes out of this first round is worth emulating. My expectation is
> that after seeing what new TLDs really look like, with all of their
> complexities and expenses, some of the companies now thinking of how to do
> this will decide not to pursue it at all. For the undecided, I think it's
> better to watch and learn than to learn while operating a registry.
> >> Bret
> >> On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >>> Is anyone from NARALO going to this conference?
> >>> http://www.cadna.org/Whats-At-Stake/
> >>> It seems like a very useful approach with which we might want to
> >>> ourselves. Yes, much of it involves major brandholders scared by the
> >>> of gTLDs, but it seems that there is much common ground between that
> >>> skepticism about the program and that of ICANN At-Large.
> >>> As one example of how this may be interesting, apparently gTLD
> >>> are unwelcome at the event:
> >>> ...
> >>> boo hoo.
> >>> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
> >>> Em: evan at telly dot org
> >>> Sk: evanleibovitch
> >>> Tw: el56
> >>> ------
> >>> NA-Discuss mailing list
> >>> NA-Discuss at 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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the ALAC