[EURO-Discuss] Proposed Euralo statement on the gTLD Applicant's guide
Patrick Vande Walle
patrick at vande-walle.eu
Fri Jan 30 06:34:41 EST 2009
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
> ***********************************************************
>
More information about the EURO-Discuss
mailing list