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

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue Feb 3 08:29:54 EST 2009


>i am fine with it too.


And me too.

Bill, we needn't be too worried about our 
requests causing delay. The point of the rolling 
process of comment and re-drafting is to 
accommodate changes, what EU RALO is asking for 
isn't all that radical (of course some would need 
to be negotiated with other stakeholders.)

That said, parts of the ALAC draft, like the 
suggestion to re-introduce a limited first round 
would cause a major disruption. But I don't think 
we're supporting that. Are we?

I think the ALAC draft is also wrong to suggest 
ICANN hasn't any idea of how to handle the work 
the programme will create -- expect anyone 
involved in draft an 1000 page guidebook has a 
very good idea of what's ahead, and there's 
awareness of need for resources (hence the fee 
structure we disagree with.)  That paragraph 
could be better restated to identify the need to 
ensure adequate resources able to cope with the 
workload.  Similar, the ALAC paragraph about 
ICANN's slowly improving compliance process 
should again be stated as advice, perhaps along 
the lines of: ICANN¹s compliance processes are 
improving slowly, however to accommodate hundreds 
of new TLDs they must be significantly more 
robust ... we recommend a review of current 
practises to identify of weaknesses and propose 
solutions to be ready for the launch of the new 
TLD acceptance and contracting period.... or some 
such.)

Adam



>;-)
>annette
>
>>  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>  Von: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick at vande-walle.eu>
>>  Gesendet: 30.01.09 12:35:09
>>  An: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>>  CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>  Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo 
>>statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide
>
>
>>
>>  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
>>  > ***********************************************************
>>  >
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>  EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>
>>  Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>>
>
>--
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org




More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list