<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">As usual, Dev and his research prowess cannot be denied. However with Silber, I'm prepared to take it at face value his reason is 'conflict of interest'. For what I sense of him is way darker......</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><br>==============================<br>Carlton A Samuels<br>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><i><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i><br>=============================</div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:devtee@gmail.com" target="_blank">devtee@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Bruce primarily on conflict of interest, but not Mike<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Dev Anand</div></font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div><span></span><br>On Saturday, 19 December 2015, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>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 <<a>devtee@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<pre>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" target="_blank">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><<a>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> 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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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: <a href="tel:876-818-1799" value="+18768181799" target="_blank">876-818-1799</a><br> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround<br> =============================<br><br> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<a>ocl@gih.com</a>><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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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> <a>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br><br> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br><br><br><hr><br><hr><br>
At-Large mailing list<br> <a>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br><br> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br><br><hr><br> At-Large mailing list<br> <a>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br><br> At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br></blockquote></pre></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>