[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sat Jun 16 17:15:04 UTC 2012


Indeed, the outreach plan was a failure in so many respects, and people have been complaining about it for a while to no avail, even while there was still a chance to fix it. And we see the results: 17 applications from Africa and 3 applicant support applications.  And while I was hopping that 10 - 20 of the applications would be from ASP applicants, I meant of the global total, not of the African total.

By any definition, while we have been able to get a thousand flowers to bloom, with the help of the agribusiness applicants, we GAC not manged to do any real outreach to developing regions.  


Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

>So Amazon and Google are taking advantage, of course they are. Good
>luck to them (I guess.)
>What we should be angry about is presented elegantly in the following
>comment (and, for what it's worth, is also an example of why I feel a
>great shame we are loosing the Friday board meeting.)
>Dakar, ICANN Board meeting
>>>MIKE SILBER:   Thank you, Chair.  I intend to vote against this
>motion and I would like to read my reasons.
>Some people might think from previous votes that this is a principle
>objection to new gTLD program.  On the contrary, it's because I
>believe in the new gTLD program as a logical extension from the
>creation of ICANN, and more importantly in the bottom-up
>multistakeholder model that I intend to vote in this way.
>There are three primary reasons for my vote.  The first, the current
>communications plan ignores the board resolution of March 2010 in
>Nairobi and specifically community input.  The Nairobi resolution
>states, and I will just read the relevant part, "ICANN will work with
>the SOs and ACs to leverage the," or I believe that's a typo and it
>should be "their networks and design the timeline around the actual
>Public comment on the communications plan, both formal and informal as
>well as GAC guidance, all called for the use and inclusion of the
>community and the regional inclusiveness of the communications plan.
>This has not occurred, and instead, a top-down English dominated
>program has resulted with a single figurehead representing the
>entirety of the massive amount of community work on the program.
>None of the community, and for that matter, the board's input appears
>to have been taken into account.
>The second reason, the current budget request is in my view an attempt
>to rescue a communications plan which has been badly designed and
>executed.  Despite repeated and ongoing assurances of the readiness of
>the organization with regards communications, up to Singapore and
>beyond it, few of the plan's objectives in the current plan appear to
>have been made.
>The current budget of approximately $805,000 has seen the development
>of a new gTLD microsite and related materials and the attendance
>primarily of the CEO at events around the world.  These have included
>ICANN-hosted events as well as attendance at various technology events
>and, with a few notable exceptions, these have taken place in
>developed countries.
>Outreach in Africa is claimed as comprising three events:  the IGF
>Nairobi, this meeting, and attendance at Highway Africa in
>Grahamstown, South Africa, not Cape Town, an event that ICANN has
>attended consistently for many years.  All three events are budgeted
>for elsewhere within the ICANN budget.
>It accordingly appears that not a single extra cent has been spent on
>outreach to Africa.
>This is in spite of a budget item of $500,000 of than 805,000 for
>outreach in the five regions, which one would expect would be
>apportioned equally or at least fairly across the five regions.  I
>have been advised that this may be a budget reference from a version
>prior to the proposed reversion; however, this does not detract from
>the fact if there had been no spend on regional outreach in Africa and
>no plan to do so as currently appears, there would be at least 100,000
>U.S. dollars or more available to be spent on consultants.
>Furthermore, outreach involving the appearance of one or more North
>Americans standing on a podium undermines the involvement of this
>volunteer community on these issues, and a bottom-up process which may
>have seen more direct engagement if it had been trusted to assist with
>communications in the same way it had been trusted to actually develop
>the policy that this grand world tour is now trying to promote.
>The third reason, the current neglect of African countries developing
>in Africa in particular will be perpetuated even with the additional
>budget.  The consultants that the additional budget will pay, Burson
>Marsteller, as well as the advertising agencies that they will
>subcontract, most likely the same agency which in turn owns Burson
>Marsteller, will have -- or have a significant reputation and have
>been touted as ideal to provide worldwide coverage.
>In fact, the list of offices and affiliates on their Web site is
>impressive, particularly coverage in Africa, until one digs a little
>deeper and finds out that there are two offices in Africa, one in
>Cairo covering Egypt and one in Johannesburg covering South Africa as
>well as the entire African continent.
>I am a proud South African but doubt I could do a better job of
>engaging the media and the community in Morocco, Mozambique or Malawi
>as a local could.
>A broken new gTLD communications plan.
>[ Applause ]
>>>STEVE CROCKER:   Thank you very much, Mike.
>As you can tell from the audience reaction, as I know you know from
>our discussions, we have had long debates and taken all of this quite
>On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I really do not understnd the suprise, shock and gnashing of teeth
>about this.  I certanly have expected and have been talking about it
>for a long time.
>> The argument that this is not in the service of the public interest
>is funny, since people like Bertrand who wanted to only allow names
>that were in the public interst was shot down most definately as being
>just another beauty contest.  whoever could build a business case and
>buy the bigget bucks was the best owner, we were told (except for the
>community names that most of those who might complain told us were not
>really possible) .  This was also alwasy one of the reasons for the VI
>work; what if some company got a name for itself that it wanted to keep
>private using it for its own purposes;yeah i expect tha these users
>need to sign the RAA and pay that fee too.
>> Why are we surprised that someone did what was expected to be one of
>the options.
>> I think this is one of the innovations we were led to expect.
>> What surprised me was the agribusiness approach to the thousand
>flowers ablooming that some of the purveyors of registry services
>engaged in. I expected some to buy bunches or even dozens and maybe
>even a score or two.  But hundreds? That shocked me.  And as I told
>some friends, I wasn't sure whether i was in awe or dread.  But in the
>end, i think we got a diversity of approaches, and that strikes me as a
>good thing overall.
>> avri
>> "Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.ie> wrote:
>>>I think a couple of the mainstream media outlets picked up on this,
>>>this really worries me and probably others:
>>>Mr Michele Neylon
>>>Blacknight Solutions ♞
>> _______________________________________________
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>> Working Group direct URL:


More information about the At-Large mailing list