<html><head></head><body>I believe that Bruce and Mike abstained due to conflict of interest.<br>
<br>
Alan <br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On December 19, 2015 1:47:49 PM EST, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">Dear Kaili<br /><br />Just to post the link to the recordings of The Board Session at the<br />ICANN 41 meeting on Monday which passed the resolution to launch the<br />gTLD program: <a href="http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24505">http://singapore41.icann.org/node/24505</a><br /><br />It wasn't just George Sadowsky who voted no, Bruce Tonkin and Mike<br />Silber also abstained.<br /><br />Dev Anand<br /><br /><br /><br />On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Alan Greenberg<br /><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Kaili,<br /><br /> If you were at that meeting *AND* remember what was said, I don't think you<br /> are eligible to be called a newcomer any more!<br /><br /> For better or worse, ICANN preserves pretty much everything. You can find<br /> that transcript at<br /> <a
href="http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-board-new-gtlds-20jun11-en.txt">http://singapore41.icann.org/meetings/singapore2011/transcript-board-new-gtlds-20jun11-en.txt</a><br /> , If you search for the second occurrence of "sadowsky", you will find what<br /> you are looking for. It was a rather unusual Board meeting held immediately<br /> after the opening session on Monday. I always presumed it was held on the<br /> Monday instead of the traditional end-of-the-week time to allow time for<br /> partying and self-congratulations.<br /><br /> To find pretty much everything available from past meetings, go to the<br /> Meetings site at <a href="https://meetings.icann.org/en">https://meetings.icann.org/en</a>/. It is always (hopefully)<br /> pointed to from the ICANN home page in the box talking about the upcoming<br /> meeting. from there, click on the top navigation menu item "Calendar and<br /> Archives". The ICANNnn links point to the specific meet
ing
site.<br /><br /> Alan<br /><br /><br /> At 19/12/2015 11:13 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:<br /><br /> Talking about the new gTLD program, I remember attending the 2011 ICANN 41<br /> in Singapore. As I remember, that time George Sadowski was the only Board<br /> member who voted against it. Maybe some of his opinions, as well as records<br /> of the debate, could shed some light for new comers like me to better<br /> understand the issue.<br /><br /> I just wonder where I can find this. Anybody can help? Thank you.<br /><br /> Kaili Kan<br /><br /><br /><br /> ----- Original Message -----<br /> From: Carlton Samuels<br /> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond<br /> Cc: John R. Levine ; At-Large Worldwide<br /> Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:14 PM<br /> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD<br /> Subsequent Procedures<br /><br /> I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here. Our colleague Evan<br /> Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statemen
t on
PAG had a greater task<br /> keeping us focused on the priority topics than finding grist for what was<br /> wrong with the details of the program, at least from our perspective.<br /><br /> We were the first to call the Morality and Public Order clause odious and an<br /> assault on common sense. And despite the severe criticism the ALAC, to its<br /> credit, did not back off our interest in the Applicant Support initiative.<br /> This never met expectations. But at least we were in the fight. We should be<br /> proud of the body of work from the ALAC in that period.<br /><br /> -Carlton<br /><br /><br /><hr /><br /> Carlton A Samuels<br /> Mobile: 876-818-1799<br /> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround<br /> =============================<br /><br /> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com><br /> wrote:<br /> Dear Christopher,<br /><br /> sorry I am only picking this up now - it was filed in the wrong folder.<br /
> My
comments below:<br /><br /> On 09/12/2015 20:08, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hmmm … following a brief readd (there are 160 pp.), it would appear:<br /></blockquote><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br /> 1. That there was no attempt to update the 2010 economic studies, which<br /> were considered to be adequate.<br /></blockquote><br /> The economic study (which can be found at<br /> <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2010-12-03-en">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2010-12-03-en</a> ) was published in<br /> two parts, such was the pressure on ICANN to be able to tick the<br /> "economic study" box that had been set along the path to launching the<br /> new gTLD process. From memory, a public consultation on these reports<br /> was never lau
nched.
The only ALAC comment relating to the Applicant<br /> Guidebook & the new gTLD program was here:<br /> <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-agbv5-08dec10-en.pdf">http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-agbv5-08dec10-en.pdf</a><br /> As you can see, the ALAC was not happy about a number of things which<br /> then came back to bite ICANN later on. "told you so"<br /> In the meantime, read the economic study and you'll see how naive and<br /> rushed it is.<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br /> 2. There is one reference to an opinion that the demand for new gTLDs was<br /> 'illusory'. Not clear whether this refers to the demand from Registries or<br /> from Registrants.<br /></blockquote><br /> There was a demand for new gTLDs from potential applicants. Some<br /> applicants had already "sold" their program to investors and clients. I<br /> have s
trong
memories of the ICANN public forum having scores of people<br /> queueing up asking the Board to give the new gTLD program the go ahead,<br /> and that the applicant guidebook was good enough to be signed off. The<br /> ALAC view, as you can see from above, was that it wasn't ready. That<br /> introduced some tension all around, with some people accusing the ALAC<br /> that it was against new gTLDs and that this position was counter to<br /> Internet end users out there who couldn't register domain names in an<br /> already crowded space. The ALAC stood by its position but was completely<br /> ignored. Moreover you'll note that there's a complete fumble on ICANN's<br /> part with regards to Registrant Rights & Responsibilities with a botched<br /> "Registrant Benefits" part and "Registrant Rights" sub-part. Anyway ---<br /> very poor follow-up on this on ICANN's part.<br /><br /> As a result, I am shedding no tears for any failed new gTLD. I am sorry<br /> for the end use
rs that
are going to be affected and I think that the<br /> ALAC needs to watch this very closely, to make sure end users who have<br /> registered domains in new gTLDs are treated well. The ALAC's relevant<br /> working groups should keep a watch over that. Unfortunately the most<br /> active participants are already flat out on ICANN Accountability & other<br /> things, but the WGs would benefit from sharp eyes & tongues.<br /><br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"><br /> 3. There are several references to the financial evaluation of the<br /> applicants. However, one may wonder what that consisted of as applied to<br /> 800+ applicants (and still counting).<br /> I would have to ask how many qualified financial analysts would have<br /> been required to do a serious job on so many applications in such a short<br /> period of time.<br /> In my time it was called risk analysis; no
wadays
it is called 'stress<br /> tests'.<br /><br /> The gist of the report seems to be to recommend a massive new PDP to<br /> review and propose what to do next. Every conceivable topic is included,<br /> except the economics of the DNS markets and the financial position of the<br /> Registries. Perhaps some prioritisation is called for.<br /></blockquote><br /> At-Large participants will need to be part of that PDP. Expect it to<br /> start soon as once again there are forces out there that want another<br /> application round of Ponz... I mean new gTLDs to start as soon as possible.<br /> Kindest regards,<br /><br /> Olivier<br /><br /><hr /><br /> At-Large mailing list<br /> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br /> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br /><br /> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br /><br /><br /><hr /><br /><hr /><br
/>
At-Large mailing list<br /> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br /> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br /><br /> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br /><br /><hr /><br /> At-Large mailing list<br /> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<br /> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br /><br /> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br /></blockquote></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>