[ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release

[Fouad Bajwa]

3G or telecom deregulation in our part of the world had the requirement to
establish universal service funds USF to serve the public interest and
extend services to the last mile by adding a small percentage of telco
revenues to the USF pool. In this case, one may need to be very clear in
distinguishing what the public interest is, the longstanding debate to
actually what it is, non-profit is a confusing term in itself and private
sector entities have tons of non-profits working under them.....

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> Dear Alan,
>
> thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more
> complete than version 1.
> I note a couple of references being made of past statements by people who
> then became At-Large members, both dating from 2007. Whilst I cannot
> comment on Avri's Statement, I would like to emphasize that my Statement
> then was in the context of gTLDs and the then dynamics in 2007. The
> comparison to 3G licenses is probably way out of line now, since we now
> have thousands of new gTLDs thus we are looking at the premium "worth" of a
> gTLD now that is likely to be lower than when the choice of gTLD was
> limited to legacy gTLDs.
>
> I have already received some negative feedback about this quote from
> people who interpreted my 2007 email as being a call for ICANN to set a
> minimum price tag for these domains, much like some of the price tags that
> were given to 3G spectrum auctions. With the changing times and landscape,
> my opinion is that we should support an auction process, we should support
> it for its proceeds to fund a non profit but there is no need for ICANN to
> set a minimum (or reserve) price.
>
> Could this, or a summary of this explanation (or clarification) please be
> included in the Statement to explain the context of my 2007 comment and
> soften it to align it with the current reality that there are now thousands
> of gTLDs? I do not want the wrong message to be retained by the reader of
> such a message - and definitely do not want this single opinion that is now
> more than 10 years told, to overshadow the clear messages we wish to convey
> in the ALAC's Statement.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
>
> On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> In light of other comments posted, Jonathan has suggested that we issue a
> supplemental comment making it clear that we beleive that the auction
> proceeds must go to charities that support the public good and the Internet
> Community. Moreover, the TLD must actually be used and not acquired for
> speculation/resale.
>
> I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the fact.
>
> Is there any strong opposition to this?
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Public Policy Analyst
Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180625/66411a2d/attachment.html>