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

[William Drake]

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
***********************************************************