[ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Alan,

given that a follow-up statement with "corrections" was posted to the
public comment forum after I informed you of the matter below and given
the fact that my comment was not taken into account, I hereby ask you
again to have this statement amended as per below.

Should this Statement be ratified as such, it will leave me with no
option than to write directly to the Public Comment Forum, to issue a
rebuttal that I disassociate myself from this Statement.
Kindest regards,

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
(in my personal capacity)

On 24/06/2018 00:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond 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, PhD
> http://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)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20180628/d20ce659/attachment.html>