[At-Large] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
devtee at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 18:29:16 UTC 2015
And indeed, a good summary from Olivier.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 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>
>> 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:
>> 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
>> Kindest regards,
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large