[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics
avri at acm.org
Sun Jun 17 17:51:39 UTC 2012
I'd go for some combination of the first 3 reasons.
Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
>The results indicate one or more of a couple of causes, depending on
>- The ICANN publicity campaign for applicant support was so utterly
>pathetic, that only people already close to the process understood
>to take advantage of the opportunity;
>- It's official; ICANN is a rich world organization serving rich world
>players, and only plays lip service to a global scope. The applicant
>support program made for good optics, but ICANN had no interest in its
>actually working. That a handful of insiders were able to exploit,
>those inside the bubble to still pretend that ICANN has worldwide
>- Any claim that the bottom up process works, our that the public
>had a voice in ICANN, was definitively put to rest. This program was
>asserted on an unwilling Board, staff and industry by the public
>community, the first ever major policy initiative of this kind. So
>naturally, it never stood a chance.
>- There truly is no demand for gTLDs outside the ICANN bubble of
>speculators and name-protectors, along with a handful of internet
>infrastructure providers. Only insiders are deluded enough to perceive
>ANY money given to ICANN is money well spent on improving access or
>development. Community organizers - especially the ones targeted for
>applicant support - would rather spend their limited funds locally. IOW
>... in the real world outside ICANN, gTLDs -- even subsidized -- are
>unnecessary vanity items that do not benefit providers or consumers of
>internet content and services.
>The first explanation indicates incompetent execution of ICANN's
>The second indicates an intolerable bias in interpreting the mandate.
>third suggests a horrible breakdown in the governance of the mandate.
>the fourth suggests that the mandate itself is fundamentally flawed.
>Take your pick. They're not mutually exclusive.
>On Jun 16, 2012 10:46 PM, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> The three support applications are particularly disappointing in
>> light of all three being from long-time ICANN participants.
>> At 16/06/2012 01:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >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
>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Working Group direct URL:
More information about the At-Large