[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics

[William Drake]

Insofar as this frustration is shared by ALAC and NCSG and probably both would like to see the questions posed clearly and responded to in Prague, perhaps it'd be useful to discuss this at our Monday meeting with an eye toward some joint action?

Bill

On Jun 17, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on
>> perspective:
>> 
>> - The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly
>> pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood
>> enough
>> to take advantage of the opportunity;
>> 
>> - It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world
>> players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant
>> support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its
>> actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit,
>> enables
>> those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide
>> sensibilities.
>> 
>> - Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public
>> interest
>> had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was
>> asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public
>> interest
>> community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So
>> naturally, it never stood a chance.
>> 
>> - There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of
>> speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet
>> infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive
>> that
>> ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or
>> development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for
>> applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW
>> ...  in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are
>> unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of
>> internet content and services.
>> 
>> The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's
>> mandate.
>> The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate.
>> The
>> third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate.
>> And
>> the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
>> 
>> Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive.
>> On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> The three support applications are particularly disappointing in
>>> light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and
>>>> people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even
>>>> while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17
>>>> applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications.  And
>>>> while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from
>>>> ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African
>> total.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>> 
>>> Working Group direct URL:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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