[NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
jipshida2 at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 29 03:33:28 UTC 2013
I am in 97% agreement with Eric.
There is a much larger issue at hand that should be adressed.
If opinions or objections are requested, we should wholeheartedly do so.
I was afraid this would go on with no debate.
However, I think Eric's broad statement should also apply across the board to all proposed TLDs.
With regard to .NYC, although in my opinion one of the more worthwhile of concepts, and is in a world apart from 90% of the other applicants, is also worthy of scrutiny.
I hope we have the energy to fully scrutinize the rest of the applicants.
Question: Should NARALO as a group approach commenting/objecting specifically on thses applications?
I object to .amazon on many levels.
A at L
>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>To: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com>
>Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 7:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
>On 1/28/13 3:20 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
>> "it is hard to imagine an objection that could avoid forcing ICANN to
>> get involved in ..."
>The imagination of your correspondent, whom you quoted above, is more
>creative than necessary. The issue before the Corporation is whether
>the proposed contracting party accepts the terms and conditions of the
>Had the offer been for "tibet", made by the executive branch of
>government in Beijing, to be operated by a for-profit corporation
>located in Hong Kong, with an intentionally fictive promise to involve
>the Tibetan people through their legislative and non-governmental
>bodies in some central aspect of the financing, operation, and policy
>development of the ".tibet" registry, it would be a difference without
>distinction from an offer for "city", made by a municipal executive
>alone, to be operated by a for-profit corporation located elsewhere,
>with the effectively fictive promise to involve the residents of the
>municipality through their legislative and non-governmental bodies in
>some central aspect of the financing, operation, and policy
>development of the ".city" registry.
>The Corporation doesn't need to "get involved in" the politics of
>anything. It must decide whether or not to take notice of material
>misrepresentation by applicants, and in the larger scope, accept or
>decline the liability to the Corporation to any party if it elects to
>ignore material misrepresentations by applicants as a matter of policy.
>The Corporation also must decide whether or not the protections for
>subordinate political and non-political geographical identifiers,
>extended from the protections offered for the Capital cities of
>countries and territories associated with iso3166-1 delegated code
>points makes the applicants for these subordinate political and
>non-political geographical identifiers sovereigns, with the same
>unilateral powers (in effect, vacating all contractual obligations but
>allowing "memoranda of understanding") as the current GAC member states.
>I appreciate that your interest may be for a particular outcome of a
>particular application. I think the issue is vastly larger than one
>application, creating both arbitrary government power where none
>currently exists, and making contracting with any public entity
>exercising this extended protection for national capitals vastly more
>difficult than anyone, in the GAC or the GNSO, ever intended at any
>time in the past five years of new gTLD policy development.
>I remain of the view that if the advice responsibilities created in
>the Corporation bylaws relative to an At Large body and the public
>interest are to be observed, that the advice must be offered to the
>Board through the available means, here the objection process.
>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