[ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release

Thu Jun 28 14:54:20 UTC 2018

I Also find quite fair Olivier’s proposal.  Each string has its own ideas to develop and we saw lots of problems in the way auction was set for 2012.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.

From: ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 08:29
To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
Cc: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org>, 'ALAC List' <ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Supplementary Comment on .O release

FWIW, I find Olivier's comment perfectly reasonable and supportable; auctions to establish who gets the string with no reserve price.

We cannot know or guess every fo...., well business plan out there. Let's disavow prior restraint here. The positional principle ought to be for maximizing the take by fair and transparent means and use those windfall proceeds to help advance the agenda to which ICANN and the community are severally committed.

Let's opt to help our friends and neighbours who would wish to spend big money on a string do so efficiently and help some others too. Because as we say in my neck of the woods when Eskimos have too much money they buy [a] [re]fridge[ator].

-Carlton

On Thu, 28 Jun 2018, 12:40 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl at gih.com<mailto:ocl at gih.com>> wrote:
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<mailto: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)<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>

--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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)

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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/20180628/865c4704/attachment.html>