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

[Annette Muehlberg]

i am fine with it too.
;-)
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
> 

--