[At-Large] ICANN blog : US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Sat Dec 4 23:18:06 UTC 2010


Antony:
You did well ventilating the sub-text.

Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Antony Van Couvering <avc at namesatwork.com>wrote:

> Carlton,
>
> A shot across the bow.  I have to agree.  First consider the timing -- just
> before the ICANN meeting, when everyone going is on a plane with limited
> connectivity.  This is true to form, Commerce always sends their letter at
> about this time.
>
> The letter is almost angry; it's certainly emotional. But all the events
> that it refers to happened weeks ago, surely long enough ago for a seasoned
> government official to cool down a bit.
>
> Second, consider the content -- the letter refers almost exclusively to the
> AoC, which is applauded by everyone (see
> http://www.icann.org/en/affirmation/affirmation-reaction.htm).  It says
> that ICANN has to honor its commitments as defined by the AoC -- which I
> think everyone will agree it should.
>
> Here's what the AoC (see xxx) says in regard to gTLDs:
>
> 9.3 Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice: ICANN will
> ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the
> various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer
> protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues,
> sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed
> prior to implementation. If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other
> language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will
> organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or
> expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer
> choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation
> process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the
> introduction or expansion.
>
> Essentially, since all of prior-to-implementation things have been
> addressed (to the greater or lesser satisfaction of various parties), the
> argument is over whether they have been "adequately addressed."   Frankly,
> that's a matter of opinion.  Some (me for instance) will say that they have
> addressed to death.  Others will argue that they won't be adequately
> addressed until ICANN agrees with their viewpoint -- see, for instance, the
> endless series of economic studies that have failed to satisfy opponents of
> gTLDs.  (There's a nice write-up of these by Milton Mueller at
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/3/4694980.html).
>
> The Department of Commerce seems to think that ICANN hasn't followed the
> AoC; ICANN seems to think it has.  This is always the problem with vague
> promises.
>
> In the late 90s, DoC took over from Postel and the nascent IAHC and created
> ICANN.  That was then, it was a different world.  Now other governments feel
> they have an interest; they watch ICANN closely, they participate, they are
> beginning to understand the issues and to take positions that differ from
> those of the U.S.  In particular, they don't like the idea of the DoC acting
> unilaterally (as it did in creating ICANN).  And the AoC speaks to that too,
> by affirming the enhanced role of the GAC.
>
> The U.S. has been doing a lot of unilateral acting lately, seizing domains
> and so on, causing businesses to consider relocating, using ccTLDs that are
> outside of U.S. jurisdiction, and so on.  I can imagine that this is not
> sitting very well with some governments who prefer multilateral decisions.
>  I have to believe that the recent domain seizures will not strengthen the
> authority of the U.S. position with other GAC members.
>
> So, yes, it's a shot across the bow, but all it can do is express
> displeasure with ICANN's interpretation of its duties under the AoC.  There
> is no obvious "violation."  ICANN has just released the latest economic
> study, which says absolutely nothing (as such studies inevitably do when
> trying to predict the future).  It can certainly easily supply additional
> reasoning for its VI decision, or any other decision it has made, and it
> probably should.  But these are deficits that are easily rectified.
>
> In essence, the DoC seems angry at ICANN for announcing that it's going
> ahead with gTLDs without explicit DoC permission, which is specifically
> *not* required by the AoC.
>
> Antony
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>
> > This ain't a whole helluva lot, to be honest.  ICANN, the corporation -
> some
> > would say 'trade association' should be included as definitional - has
> its
> > thing going.  And from time to time, it ignores folks we call
> > 'stakeholders'.  USG would not be the first so treated.
> >
> > The response goes to show though that "all animals are equal but some are
> > more equal than others".
> >
> > This is the 'public' rumbling. After so many years of reading the 'tea
> > leaves' that represent missives from official Washington, you get to know
> > that the subtext - and the content conveyed in the sub-carrier channels -
> is
> > what counts.
> >
> > ....a shot across the ICANN bow for effect......
> >
> > Carlton
> >
> > ==============================
> > Carlton A Samuels
> > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> > =============================
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <
> admin at ttcsweb.org>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/us-government-opposes-launch-of-new-gtld-program-in-cartagena/
> >> US DoC letter :
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf
> >>
> >> US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena
> >> by Rod Beckstrom
> >>
> >> We appreciate the many comments received so far on the draft Applicant
> >> Guidebook in its five full versions. We thank the community and all
> >> who contributed for their engagement, thoughts and opinions during the
> >> course of this process.
> >>
> >> One of the most recent comments we have received is a letter today
> >> from the US Department of Commerce (DoC).
> >>
> >> ICANN’s success and legitimacy derive from the multistakeholder model,
> >> the basis on which new gTLD policy was developed. The policy process
> >> decision to undertake this program was approved by the GNSO Council in
> >> 2007 and adopted by ICANN’s board of directors in 2008.
> >>
> >> In the Affirmation of Commitments, the US government and ICANN
> >> reconfirmed our mutual commitment to the multistakeholder model. ICANN
> >> confirmed our commitment to solicit public comment and to hear all
> >> voices.
> >>
> >> As with all contributions, ICANN will give DoC’s comments careful
> >> consideration as part of the implementation of the GNSO policy.
> >>
> >> ------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> At-Large mailing list
> >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >>
> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>



More information about the At-Large mailing list