<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Alan,<br>
<br>
thanks for this. I do think that the updated statement is a lot more
complete than version 1.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/06/2018 16:07, Alan Greenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:YTOPR0101MB15152CE44412F8A2B95EAA1593770@YTOPR0101MB1515.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM">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.
<br>
<br>
I strongly suggest that we post this comment and ratify after the
fact.
<br>
<br>
Is there any strong opposition to this?
<br>
<br>
Alan
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ALAC mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a>
<br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<br>
ALAC Working Wiki:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.gih.com/ocl.html">http://www.gih.com/ocl.html</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>