[EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide

[Patrick Vande Walle]

I am fine with your proposed changes. Obviously your English drafting is
better than mine ;-)  -Patrick

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:10:50 +0100, William Drake
<william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying the intention, the new first sentence seems apt  
> (assuming this is in fact a strong majority view in Euralo, not many  
> responses yet so I don't know).  I wonder though if maybe it might  
> also be good to tweak a bit more, perhaps like,
> 
> "The EURALO does not support recent calls to delay the new gTLD process
> until additional studies are performed. We are particularly concerned  
> about
> any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country  
> code,
> and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. At the  
> same time,
> we believe that ICANN needs to carefully examine and address the  
> public interest concerns
> raised by ALAC and others. We very much hope that these can be fully  
> addressed
> without slowing down dramatically the ongoing process."
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> *We believe that is stronger than we understand, which sounds like a  
> concession to an unfortunate condition
> 
> *Saying that ICANN needs respond to the concerns raised in the  
> numerous comments submitted is pretty broad, and not all the comments  
> are consistent with ALAC's concerns.  For present purposes, wouldn't  
> it be better to specify that we are asking that it's the public  
> interest concerns of ALAC and others be addressed? (since I have one  
> foot here and one in NCUC, which has written a pretty thorough  
> critique of the process, I'd have rather said NCUC than "others," but  
> someone here wouldn't prefer that...?)
> 
> *Saying "we are convinced" it can be done seems a leap of faith, I'd  
> rather express a hope.  And "fully addressed" seems stronger than  
> "dealt with."  One could "deal with" concerns by briefly mentioning  
> and dismissing them.
> 
> Just copy editing suggestions, I'll roll with whichever version has  
> strong support in the group.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
> 
>>
>> Bill and all,
>>
>> Yes, it may seem contradictory to suggest lot of changes and at the  
>> same
>> time express concern about possible delays.
>> Actually, I think the European concern is more directed towards some  
>> North
>> American calls to drop the process entirely or suspend it until a  
>> series of
>> long studies are performed on the relevance to the market of the  
>> whole new
>> gTLD process.
>>
>> I suggest an amendment to the text that would read:
>>
>> "The EURALO does not support recent calls to delay the new gTLD  
>> process
>> until additional studies are performed. We are particularly  
>> concerned about
>> any delay to the introduction of IDN TLDs, both generic and country  
>> code,
>> and strongly oppose any further barriers to their introduction. We
>> understand that ICANN needs to carefully examine and address concerns
>> raised in the numerous comments that were submitted. However, we are
>> convinced they can be dealt with without slowing down dramatically the
>> ongoing process."
>>
>> To reply to Annette: I had a discussion with some NARALO members,  
>> and they
>> disagree about the "no further delay" paragraph. Hence, I expect the  
>> common
>> ALAC statement to be silent about that.
>>
>> The full Euralo statement is here:
>>
https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_additional_statement_regarding_the_first_draft_of_the_applicant_guidebook_and_associated_document
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:34:47 +0100, William Drake
>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Thanks to Patrick, Adam and others for pushing this forward.
>>> Appending regional comments to the ALAC statement seems like a good
>>> idea.  I wonder though about the key sentence, "EURALO does not
>>> support recent calls for a delay to the new gTLD process."  I'm not
>>> clear on how this conclusion fits with the laundry list of concerns
>>> raised in both the EURALO and ALAC texts.  Together, they say we want
>>> ICANN to rethink registry/registrar separations; amend the guide's
>>> requirements regarding the use of registrars; have a different
>>> approval process for geographical, community bounded, non-commercial,
>>> not-for-profit gTLDs; change the one-size-fits all fee structure;
>>> improve compliance processes; build in public interest oriented
>>> mechanisms; get rid of MAPO objections; drop ICC arbitration; change
>>> the number of applications contemplated in the first round; and
>>> develop a comprehensive resourcing plan for the new gTLD program.   
>>> How
>>> could addressing all these concerns not involve delays in the
>>> process?  Can we really have it both ways?  Would we be happy if the
>>> board cited the "no delays" headline conclusion as support for moving
>>> forward, but then didn't address fully the concerns raised?  Is  
>>> that a
>>> far-fetched scenario?
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>    Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> New book: Governing Global Electronic Networks,
> http://tinyurl.com/5mh9jj
> ***********************************************************
>