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

Sat Dec 19 21:52:50 UTC 2015

Bruce primarily on conflict of interest, but not Mike

Dev Anand

On Saturday, 19 December 2015, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> I believe that Bruce and Mike abstained due to conflict of interest.
>
> Alan
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On December 19, 2015 1:47:49 PM EST, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <
> devtee at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','devtee at gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 meet
>>>  ing
>>> 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 statemen
>>>  t 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 lau
>>>  nched.
>>> 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 s
>>>  trong
>>> 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 use
>>>  rs 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; no
>>>>  wadays
>>>> 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org');>
>>>  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>>
>>>  At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20151219/25bec4d6/attachment-0001.html>