[At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

[Carlton Samuels]

I can attest to all that Olivier has recorded here.  Our colleague Evan
Leibovitch, as penholder on the ALAC statement on PAG had a greater task
keeping us focused on the priority topics than finding grist for what was
wrong with the details of the program, at least from our perspective.

We were the first to call the Morality and Public Order clause odious and
an assault on common sense.  And despite the severe criticism the ALAC, to
its credit, did not back off our interest in the Applicant Support
initiative. This never met expectations. But at least we were in the fight.
We should be proud of the body of work from the ALAC in that period.

-Carlton


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

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> Dear Christopher,
>
> sorry I am only picking this up now - it was filed in the wrong folder.
> My comments below:
>
> On 09/12/2015 20:08, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
> > Hmmm … following a brief read (there are 160 pp.), it would appear:
> >
> > 1.    That there was no attempt to update the 2010 economic studies,
> which were considered to be adequate.
>
> The economic study (which can be found at
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2010-12-03-en ) was published in
> two parts, such was the pressure on ICANN to be able to tick the
> "economic study" box that had been set along the path to launching the
> new gTLD process. From memory, a public consultation on these reports
> was never launched. The only ALAC comment relating to the Applicant
> Guidebook & the new gTLD program was here:
> http://atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-agbv5-08dec10-en.pdf
> As you can see, the ALAC was not happy about a number of things which
> then came back to bite ICANN later on. "told you so"
> In the meantime, read the economic study and you'll see how naive and
> rushed it is.
>
> >
> > 2.    There is one reference to an opinion that the demand for new gTLDs
> was 'illusory'. Not clear whether this refers to the demand from Registries
> or from Registrants.
>
> There was a demand for new gTLDs from potential applicants. Some
> applicants had already "sold" their program to investors and clients. I
> have strong memories of the ICANN public forum having scores of people
> queueing up asking the Board to give the new gTLD program the go ahead,
> and that the applicant guidebook was good enough to be signed off. The
> ALAC view, as you can see from above, was that it wasn't ready. That
> introduced some tension all around, with some people accusing the ALAC
> that it was against new gTLDs and that this position was counter to
> Internet end users out there who couldn't register domain names in an
> already crowded space. The ALAC stood by its position but was completely
> ignored. Moreover you'll note that there's a complete fumble on ICANN's
> part with regards to Registrant Rights & Responsibilities with a botched
> "Registrant Benefits" part and "Registrant Rights" sub-part. Anyway ---
> very poor follow-up on this on ICANN's part.
>
> As a result, I am shedding no tears for any failed new gTLD. I am sorry
> for the end users that are going to be affected and I think that the
> ALAC needs to watch this very closely, to make sure end users who have
> registered domains in new gTLDs are treated well. The ALAC's relevant
> working groups should keep a watch over that. Unfortunately the most
> active participants are already flat out on ICANN Accountability & other
> things, but the WGs would benefit from sharp eyes & tongues.
>
> >
> > 3.    There are several references to the financial evaluation of the
> applicants. However, one may wonder what that consisted of as applied to
> 800+ applicants (and still counting).
> >       I would have to ask how many qualified financial analysts would
> have been required to do a serious job on so many applications in such a
> short period of time.
> >       In my time it was called risk analysis; nowadays it is called
> 'stress tests'.
> >
> > The gist of the report seems to be to recommend a massive new PDP to
> review and propose what to do next. Every conceivable topic is included,
> except the economics of the DNS markets and the financial position of the
> Registries. Perhaps some prioritisation is called for.
>
> At-Large participants will need to be part of that PDP. Expect it to
> start soon as once again there are forces out there that want another
> application round of Ponz... I mean new gTLDs to start as soon as possible.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20151219/833818b1/attachment-0001.html>