[NA-Discuss] NA RALO response to DOC letter

[Beau Brendler]

Greetings, all.

I am informed by Darlene we took as an action item in our last meeting (in Cartagena) the formulation of a response to the US Dept. of Commerce's letter to Rod Beckstrom on the topic of new gTLDs.

The letter can be found at the following URL:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf

In essence, the DOC is saying that ICANN failed to respond to concerns raised in a letter the DOC's NTIA sent two years ago. That letter, much clearer than this follow-up, can be found here:

http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08-en.pdf

At issue is an economic study ICANN was supposed to perform to determine if the cost of expanding the number of gTLDs would outweigh the benefits. The commerce department says ICANN's June 16 publication of "An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names" is insufficient, and that the topic needs further study. You can read the ICANN paper here:

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/economic-analysis-of-new-gtlds-16jun10-en.pdf

The December DOC letter takes ICANN to task not only for the paper's failure to live up to what it expected, but also says that citation of data and decision-making process is insufficient, adding up to "bad faith" in light of ICANN's promises to improve accountability and transparency.

What should NA RALO's response be?

For context, here's what Milton Mueller has to say:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/3/4694980.html

We can discuss during Monday's call, unless a consensus emerges prior to.

Beau


-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>Sent: Jan 7, 2011 10:17 AM
>To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Call for comment ASAP on ICANN strat plan
>
>Oliver,
>
>Thank you, that is helpful. The abandonment of the "Everyone 
>Connected" phrase from the corporate vision statement is harsh, they 
>could have at least substituted something like "Most everyone with 
>some kind of accessibility".
>
>I was invited to join the formation of a U.S. Delegation to the ITU 
>Meeting on IPv6, March 15 and 16 2010 in Geneva on the issue you mention.
>
>> ... distribute IPv6 addresses using Country Internet Registries (CIR) thus bypassing the Regional Internet Registries (RIR) system ...
>
>I submitted written comments, as CORE's Chief Technical Officer at the 
>time, which I'd be happy to share on this very point, the issues 
>present in both the CIR and RIR models for routing resources.
>
>I still hope to see the older vision statements. If there was one back 
>when the Berlin meeting took place and the Constituencies were formed, 
>it might have been "This might work" or "There is no Plan B".
>
>Eric
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>------