[At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

[Dev Anand Teelucksingh]

Dear Kaili

Just to post the link to the recordings of The Board Session at the
ICANN 41 meeting on Monday which passed the resolution to launch the
gTLD program: http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24505

It wasn't just George Sadowsky who voted no, Bruce Tonkin and Mike
Silber also abstained.

Dev Anand



On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Hi Kaili,
>
> If you were at that meeting *AND* remember what was said, I don't think you
> are eligible to be called a newcomer any more!
>
> For better or worse, ICANN preserves pretty much everything. You can find
> that transcript at
> http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-board-new-gtlds-20jun11-en.txt
> , If you search for the second occurrence of "sadowsky", you will find what
> you are looking for. It was a rather unusual Board meeting held immediately
> after the opening session on Monday. I always presumed it was held on the
> Monday instead of the traditional end-of-the-week time to allow time for
> partying and self-congratulations.
>
> To find pretty much everything available from past meetings, go to the
> Meetings site at https://meetings.icann.org/en/. It is always (hopefully)
> pointed to from the ICANN home page in the box talking about the upcoming
> meeting. from there, click on the top navigation menu item "Calendar and
> Archives". The ICANNnn links point to the specific meeting site.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 19/12/2015 11:13 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:
>
> Talking about the new gTLD program, I remember attending the 2011 ICANN 41
> in Singapore.  As I remember, that time George Sadowski was the only Board
> member who voted against it.  Maybe some of his opinions, as well as records
> of the debate, could shed some light for new comers like me to better
> understand the issue.
>
> I just wonder where I can find this.  Anybody can help?  Thank you.
>
> Kaili Kan
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carlton Samuels
> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
> Cc: John R. Levine ; At-Large Worldwide
> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures
>
> I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here.  Our colleague Evan
> Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statement on PAG had a greater task
> keeping us focused on the priority topics than finding grist for what was
> wrong with the details of the program, at least from our perspective.
>
> We were the first to call the Morality and Public Order clause odious and an
> assault on common sense.  And despite the severe criticism the ALAC, to its
> credit, did not back off our interest in the Applicant Support initiative.
> This never met expectations. But at least we were in the fight. We should be
> proud of the body of work from the ALAC in that period.
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Christopher,
>
> sorry I am only picking this up now - it was filed in the wrong folder.
> My comments below:
>
> On 09/12/2015 20:08, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
>> Hmmm … following a brief readd (there are 160 pp.), it would appear:
>
>>
>> 1.  That there was no attempt to update the 2010 economic studies, which
>> were considered to be adequate.
>
> The economic study (which can be found at
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2010-12-03-en ) was published in
> two parts, such was the pressure on ICANN to be able to tick the
> "economic study" box that had been set along the path to launching the
> new gTLD process. From memory, a public consultation on these reports
> was never launched. The only ALAC comment relating to the Applicant
> Guidebook & the new gTLD program was here:
> http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-agbv5-08dec10-en.pdf
> As you can see, the ALAC was not happy about a number of things which
> then came back to bite ICANN later on. "told you so"
> In the meantime, read the economic study and you'll see how naive and
> rushed it is.
>
>>
>> 2.  There is one reference to an opinion that the demand for new gTLDs was
>> 'illusory'. Not clear whether this refers to the demand from Registries or
>> from Registrants.
>
> There was a demand for new gTLDs from potential applicants. Some
> applicants had already "sold" their program to investors and clients. I
> have strong memories of the ICANN public forum having scores of people
> queueing up asking the Board to give the new gTLD program the go ahead,
> and that the applicant guidebook was good enough to be signed off. The
> ALAC view, as you can see from above, was that it wasn't ready. That
> introduced some tension all around, with some people accusing the ALAC
> that it was against new gTLDs and that this position was counter to
> Internet end users out there who couldn't register domain names in an
> already crowded space. The ALAC stood by its position but was completely
> ignored. Moreover you'll note that there's a complete fumble on ICANN's
> part with regards to Registrant Rights & Responsibilities with a botched
> "Registrant Benefits" part and "Registrant Rights" sub-part. Anyway ---
> very poor follow-up on this on ICANN's part.
>
> As a result, I am shedding no tears for any failed new gTLD. I am sorry
> for the end users that are going to be affected and I think that the
> ALAC needs to watch this very closely, to make sure end users who have
> registered domains in new gTLDs are treated well. The ALAC's relevant
> working groups should keep a watch over that. Unfortunately the most
> active participants are already flat out on ICANN Accountability & other
> things, but the WGs would benefit from sharp eyes & tongues.
>
>>
>> 3.  There are several references to the financial evaluation of the
>> applicants. However, one may wonder what that consisted of as applied to
>> 800+ applicants (and still counting).
>>      I would have to ask how many qualified financial analysts would have
>> been required to do a serious job on so many applications in such a short
>> period of time.
>>      In my time it was called risk analysis; nowadays it is called 'stress
>> tests'.
>>
>> The gist of the report seems to be to recommend a massive new PDP to
>> review and propose what to do next. Every conceivable topic is included,
>> except the economics of the DNS markets and the financial position of the
>> Registries. Perhaps some prioritisation is called for.
>
> At-Large participants will need to be part of that PDP. Expect it to
> start soon as once again there are forces out there that want another
> application round of Ponz... I mean new gTLDs to start as soon as possible.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org