[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy &CommerceCommittee
Garth Bruen at Knujon.com
gbruen at knujon.com
Thu Dec 15 14:59:07 UTC 2011
Yes, the real business of congress does not happen in front of the cameras.
The consensus is to move forward with the privatization and
internationalization of the Internet and not reassert U.S. "control."
However, there is significant disagreement within U.S. agencies about the
details. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission chair has called the plan a
"disaster." The commerce committee majority position paper was
strongly-worded, and while these are often politically-driven there is
concern among various political stripes. Most law enforcement agencies in
the U.S. are very concerned.
Others have mentioned this before, but anyone who has concerns about the
program is being painted as "anti-new gTLD" and that's not accurate. I
reread the ALAC Mexico position and it is clear that this well thought out
letter does not oppose the program but picks apart problematic details. I
think this is exactly what the committee members meant yesterday when they
said the plan is "not ready for prime-time" (however everything on US
prime-time is trash now, so I'm not sure if this is a useful cliché).
I have heard "ALAC's advice was ignored again" enough times to be very
concerned when it seems to be happening again.
From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:54 AM
To: "ICANN At-Large list" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Cc: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: Draft letter to House Energy
> On 14 December 2011 12:20, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen at knujon.com>
> I'm concerned that this does not specifically reference ALAC's statement
>> the program which is the subject of the hearings.
> Hi Garth,
> This was a matter of timing. We were not invited to participate (at least
> that I am aware of), and only found out at the last moment. That we've
> able to submit something useful to just get their attention is an
> I have heard in some circles that these Congressional hearings are just
> political grandstanding, and that the official position of the US
> government (at least as expressed by Larry Strickling) defends the
> multi-stakeholder model and the current process. Supporters of new gTLDs
> have interpreted this as support for the ICANN status quo, and that those
> parts of the community who did not "get their way" in the program should
> just stop whining and let the gTLD goldrush roll on.
> I would submit, OTOH, that ALAC (and the public interest in general) was
> never really part of the community that pressed for or bought into the new
> gTLD program, its early fundamental flaws were deeply set before we were
> even allowed to be involved. Our participation, this late in the program's
> evolution, can best be characterized as damage mitigation; we have tried,
> without major success(*), to influence some of its worst harms.
> (*) - On applicant support there was partial success in that there was any
> movement at all. But the major issue of fee reduction separate from any
> ICANN "fund" -- a cornerstone of the JAS multi-stakeholder recommendation
> -- was explicitly rejected by the Board opaquely and without explanation.
> On the issue of morality based objections, despite hundreds of community
> person-hours invested in the "Rec6" Working group, the situation actually
> has worsened. We have also tried to blunt the worst excesses of the
> trademark lobby -- while appreciating the end-user benefits of reasonable
> name protection -- but have had negligible impact here. On the balance,
> influence has been net-positive but just barely.
> The letter might lead with "At-Large did not (was not asked/invited?)
>> to testify, and was not referenced by Pritz in the list of constituent
>> groups who contribute to ICANN consensus. However, our previous current
>> stand on the new gTLD program is/can be found..."
> While I certainly agree with the sentiment, we did not have anywhere near
> the time needed to craft this properly, and I'm not sure it would have any
> effect if the purpose of this is to grandstand without actually changing
> policy. A well worded assertion that "we exist, please call us if you
> really want an end-user PoV" was all that was reasonably possible given
> limits at hand.
> - Evan
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss