[At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments by IT for Change, India

[Avri Doria]

hi, 

the token holder was used to designate the person who thought the issue was important enough to be brought up and included on the list.

the expectation, stated repeatedly in the group, was that others interested in this topic would aggregate around this person and actually get a recommendation drafted for the group to consider and work on.

there was also component it that while I would track the work and build tables that referenced it, I was not going to be the one as chair of the group to actually work each of these issues.  I would put them on every meeting's agenda and see if anything had been done.  and if after a long time nothing had been done, i would ask the group whether they thought the topic should be dropped from the list of issues worth considering and working on.

if the term is so odious or confusing please suggest another.

on the other hand, you could just accept the term and either do something or say you don't want to hold the token.

cheers

Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

>On 27 September 2012 11:57, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>> You say that it is within the scope of the WG to give advice on the
>> private gTLD issue. You have pointed to me to the page where the
>listed
>> issues for the WG can be seen. Here I see that on the issue of
>private
>> gTLDs the token holder (not exactly sure what it means though) is
>Evan
>> Leibovitch.
>>
>
>Actually, I'm not sure what the term "token holder" means either. I
>know I
>have had an interest in the issue, done significant research, and
>participated in many relevant ICANN working groups to date. But, then,
>so
>have many others here.
>
>
>> However, in an email on 25th Sept, on the newspaper article that I
>did
>> on private gtlds, Evan had the following to say....
>>
>>     " This would have been an extremely useful intervention ... three
>> years ago.   In its current form it's merely an act of hindsight, and
>as
>> such its value is severely diminished."
>>
>> In response to my input to the Dev's WG, which he was kind enough to
>post
>> on the ICANN website, Evan posted a response which claims that
>>
>>     "While I share the concerns and have expressed many myself, the
>> ability to affect gTLD expansion policy in this direction is also
>long
>> passed."
>>
>
>Indeed, and I stand by that.
>
>
>> If the token holder of the issue of private tlds so firmly believes
>that
>> this issue is not something that anything can be done about at
>present, I
>> wonder what is the discussion about.
>
>
>
>The ALAC has the bylaw-mandated remit to advise ICANN on any component
>of
>its operation, at any time. And its gTLD working group has the ability
>to
>advance any issue to the wider ALAC for consideration as formal Advice
>to
>the ICANN Board.
>
>In the current application process the ALAC has been given a further
>capabilty to launch specific objections against specific applications
>for
>one of two very specific reasons:
>
>   1. The string being applied for is overly offensive of obscene
>   2. An applicant for a community TLD is not properly representing the
>   claimed community
>
>Your objections do not fall under one of the above categories, so they
>are
>beyond ALAC's capacity to object using its explicitly granted authority
>in
>this regard. As such, it becomes just another general policy issue, and
>I
>am suggesting that this particular issue is long past its due date.
>
>Your core issue -- the private ownership of public words -- was long
>ago
>settled by consensus, a consensus in which At-Large participated (and
>with
>which some of us -- myself included -- had severe reservations). The
>embodiment of that consensus is the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, the
>subject
>of years of debate and side-debates that is now used as a contractual
>document. ALAC has the formal freedom to demand the issue be re-opened
>--
>against the desires of every other stakeholder and our own
>participation in
>the consensus -- but I believe that to so do would be utterly pointless
>and
>ill-advised.
>
>So let's be clear. There was no ALAC "discussion" on the issue before
>your
>(and some domain-industry) comments were brought to our attention. The
>core
>issue you advanced -- whether or not it had merit -- is now moot.
>Companies
>have filed legitimate good-faith applications, and given ICANN monetary
>deposits, under published guidelines that allow private ownership of
>TLD
>strings. So even should I agree with you on your core issue, advancing
>it
>at this time (which we are *technically* entitled to do) would either
>get
>us ignored or get ICANN sued.
>
>Had you raised them when the applicant guidebook was under intense
>debate,
>you may have indeed sparked very useful debate, and perhaps affected
>opinions and the ALAC's attitudes at a time when we could have had
>influence on the final expansion policy. But your voice and this PoV
>was
>non-existent then. In fact, the real time to make such a case was even
>longer ago, when precedents were set by the private allocation of TLDs
>for
>common words such as .name and .museum.
>
>Lest there be any doubt, I have long held the position -- that most in
>At-Large can verify -- that the gTLD expansion process as a whole is
>(with
>a very few exceptions) an utter waste of resources and, on the balance,
>harmful to the public interest. As such I have great understanding and
>and
>empathy for your position. But I (and other expansion cynics) could
>have
>used your support long ago, when the debate might have produced actual
>policy results.
>
>Right now, though, aggressively stating this case simply comes across
>as
>bitter hindsight. And even that hindsight may be misplaced, IMO  -- but
>that's a different topic for, perhaps, a different discussion. Suffice
>to
>say for now that it's interesting that the only comments I have seen
>opposing private ownership of public strings -- besides yours -- come
>from
>the domain speculation industry.
>
>Just my opinions.
>
>- Evan

Avri Doria