[NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs

Fri Dec 9 21:38:04 UTC 2011

Here's what was actually said.

KP is Kurt; AK is Senator Amy Klobuchar

*http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/08/senate-gtlds-hearings-transcript*

KP: So a point I wanted to make at the end, and I missed making earlier, is
in our testimony, when we talk about a consensus-based process and that
there's a consensus for launching this program in this manner, those
consensus opinions are hard-fought and hard-won.
ICANN<http://news.dot-nxt.com/taxonomy/term/107> is
a very noisy environment and it's all those groups you mentioned: IP,
attorneys, corporations, not for profits, non-commercials and...

AK: They've said they want to expand to over 1,000? I'm just trying to
understand how we got where we are because obviously Congress, for a
change, didn't get us exactly here. [chuckle] And I want to know how we got
where we are and who's been pushing it because it didn't come through the
political process, so I'm somewhat naive about how you got where you are.

KP: Yeah. So I came through the
ICANN<http://news.dot-nxt.com/taxonomy/term/107> political
process. [chuckle]

AK: Yes.

KP: But that policy-making body, it's a bottom-up policy-making process,
that policy-making body has representatives that are appointed by all those
stakeholder groups or constituency groups. I could list them -- IP,
business, non-commercial, not-for-profit, Internet service providers,
registrees and registrars -- each one of those stakeholder groups appoint
representatives to those policy-making bodies where... In this particular
instance, they undertook this formal, bylaw regulated, policy-making
process, and over a period of 19 months, developed, ironically, 19 policy
recommendations.

The most highly debated one was the answer to the first question, should
there be new TLDs? And, if so, how should they be restricted? And what you
see in front of you is the opinion to restrict them by round, set a high
bar, make sure they have the wherewithal. Most policymakers have
discussions at ICANN <http://news.dot-nxt.com/taxonomy/term/107> meetings
and in teleconferences that occur once a month. And then they go back to
their constituency groups, and meet with them and bring back opinions. And
many of the corporations that we're talking about today, they're also
represented in those policy-making bodies and took part in those policies...

AK: And how about the non-profits, groups that are very focused on a free
and open Internet?

KP: Yeah. And the not-for-profit constituency group that we're really
pleased to have and has some of the most dynamic people in
ICANN<http://news.dot-nxt.com/taxonomy/term/107> is
new, but the non-commercial constituency is very much for an open Internet
and for the introduction of new gTLDs.

And, in fact, the sole dissenting voice in the final consensus opinion was
from the non-commercials that said, "It's not open enough. We're being too
restrictive with our limitations and protection of rights of others." So
really it was a broad base, hard-fought battle, if you can imagine, by a
very noisy group of stakeholders that are... Anybody can come to the
microphone at an ICANN <http://news.dot-nxt.com/taxonomy/term/107> meeting
and talk directly to the Chair. And the Chair sits there and responds in a
dignified way, so...

Kieren

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:59 AM, <gbruen at knujon.com> wrote:

> Avri,
>
> I hear your points, however Kurt's description of the rough and tumble
> process cast ICANN constituents as a family that has spirited arguments and
> then sits down for the same meal when it is really more complex than that.
> Kurt isn't a patriarch who speaks for me. The voice of the consumer was not
> present in this hearing.
>
> The consensus facade went down the drain as soon as he said he had to get
> permission from the Registrars to implement policy.
>
> Now, to be clear, I am not against new gtlds, I think it is inevitable.
> What I don't want is for them to be rolled out in a business as usual
> environment. Kurt's private meeting after the public hearing is more BAU.
>
> If .xxx is a microcosm of the new gtld world then it is a market driven by
> fear and not real consumer desire. The public is not clamoring for new
> gtlds.
>
> I want to see some things fixed and some more disclosure, that's my
> motivation. Any letter should explain what is missing from the discussion
> and questions of why. There's no need to wait until the next round if we
> can do it now. If it's so important to roll them out on time it's important
> enough to address our concerns at the same time if they want continued
> support and "consensus."
>
> I think it is valid that non-profits cannot enter the new space with the
> pricing, same for developing markets. The costs may keep people from
> willy-nilly making new gtlds but it is not a barrier to criminal groups and
> one made for existing industry insiders.
>
> -Garth
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Avri Doria
> Sender: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> To: NARALO Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
> Sent: Dec 9, 2011 11:38
>
> Hi,
>
> I disagree that Kurt was conveying a meaning of Complete Consensus when he
> referred to ICANN Consensus.   He was quite specific about the rough and
> tumble of ICANN consensus and even made reference to the NCUC, whose
> members were the only ones that did not support the policy recommendation
> at the time it was approved.  I note that although they did not prevail in
> the consensus and were part of the losing voice, they have since supported
> the ICANN consensus decision made against their vote.
>
> I agree that the ALAC deserves a real response to its advice, and when
> ALAC says something is unacceptable, there should be a process, I beleive
> one that is similar to that accorded GAC advice, to discuss and close the
> issue.  And I find it problematic that the Board has never discussed these
> issues with the ALAC (I am assuming they haven't since I don't really know
> - did they?  Was it ever part of the BOARD-ALAC regular face to face
> discussions? Did we formally request further dialogue on the At-Large
> issues? GAC did not get it negotiations automatically as far as I know).
>
> As for the new gTLDs themselves.  I personally support them going forward
> now, warts and all, and would not support a letter from this RALO or from
> ALAC stating that At-Large opposes new gTLDs.  I think the task now is to
> make sure they happen fairly and live up to all the promises.  And to fix
> what we can along the way and for the next round.
>
> I would support a letter that laid out the complexities and the
> differences of opinion. Unless there is an At-Large decision against new
> gTLDs according to its processes for such a major decision or advice, I
> would find it hard to accept that as the voice of the users; as hard as I
> found accepting Dyson's claims to being the USERS' representative.  I could
> also personally support a letter that included any changes ALAC advises
> would make the new gTLD process better, kind of like they did with JAS.
>
> One take way I had from the meeting was that those who were objecting to
> the new gTLD program were missing the fact that many of the protections
> that exist in the new gTLD process that do not exist in the incumbent gTLDs
> (would that they did!).  I think Senators and those who testify should be
> better educated about their subject manner.  For example I found it amazing
> that those seeking defense from new gTLD in their name, did not admit to
> the existence of the Independent Objector, who could take their issue
> forward if someone was applying for their name fraudulently.  All of the
> Charitable and Service NGOs could use this avenue as well as the good
> services of their GAC representative who could bring GAC consensus into
> supporting their cause, when just.  E.g. I am certain that if a group of
> pedophiles where to apply for YMCA, the US GAC representative would make
> sure that it did not go forward, it might even fail the first test on the
> applicant-check.  So they have lots of a!
>  venues for redress without having to resort to a too-high* Formal
> Objection fee.
>
> I hope ICANN releases and sends to the Committee a point by point
> refutation of the negative points made in testimony - showing the
> mechanisms that have been created to address the particular concerns (e.g.
> application question 18c in response to defensive second level registration
> issues).  Kurt needs to have a much more complete set of talking points;
> the process is complex and it is difficult to remember the remedy that was
> created for each of the hundreds of criticisms that have ben made.  And if
> this were on line, it would be great for them to have a placard showing the
> url and a QR.  Could even be updated real time by the ICANN boiler room in
> the background.
>
> avri
>
> * And yes, all of the fees are absurdly high.  But what can you do in a
> world controlled by bean counters.
>
> PS: It was like IDNs did not exist and where not an important motivation
> for new gTLDs - then again it was an US Senate Committee.
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2011, at 19:21, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com wrote:
>
> > Beau - Kurt did cite the multi-stakeholder model, unfortunately the way
> he
> > c
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> ------
> 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
> ------
>