[NA-Discuss] On NASA and ICANN

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Tue Mar 29 22:03:11 UTC 2011


I recall hearing a fellow from Brazil stating at the December 2010 ICANN 
Cartagena meeting that few more than a handful of people from his 
country knew of the ICANN meeting, or the potential impact it would have 
on his country.

As you mention the .nyc TLD in you message, I feel compelled to note 
that the situation here in New York City is little better.  Broadly, 
there's little demand for TLDs amongst those I meet, and I've never ever 
heard a call for TLDs from anyone outside the ICANN community. This is 
not to say we don't need them or that they wouldn't provide a good deal 
of benefit to society. I'm just noting that the young entrepreneur 
community that I'm in frequent touch with, never expresses a desire for 
additional TLDs.  Most don't seem to care about .nyc as their interest 
is the mobile world, where domain names are apparently of minor 
interest. (Much to my frustration.)

New York City's government has yet to have a public discussion about the 
utility of a city TLD (I of course think it's the greatest thing in the 
world, as do some of the coterie that support it's development as a 
public interest resource). To date, my city government's involvement has 
been occasional 
and primarily through the lens of prospective contractors.

Last week, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the city's 
Commissioners' Plan of 1811, which established Manhattan's street grid, 
I posted my view <http://bit.ly/OurBlog> on the benefits of a more 
informed TLD planning process. That thought could probably be extended 
to cities globally, as was my intent with the City TLD Governance and 
Best Practices workshop 
in Vilnius last September. However I note that I failed to engage cities 
in the endeavor as was my intent. To my knowledge, city government here 
has not actively participated in shaping the scope of city TLD 
requirements. It submitted a comment or two, but active engagement based 
on an informed public debate, zero.

So as we approach the Singapore Shindig, most of the world is in the 
exact situation Native Americans found themselves when the European 
explorers reached the North American shores: unaware and unprepared for 
the world to come.

One might say that it's the city's fault and the Brazilians fault as 
their governments have had adequate time to inform their populations. 
And how can ICANN, with its limited resources, do more to engage the 
public in the process. Absolutely true.

And all those who've invested time and money (years and years and 
millions and millions) in hopes of a new TLD business, how can ICANN 
abandon them. Absolutely true again.

Am I saying that Columbus' visa should have been revoked in 1492? 
Obviously such an action was far beyond the scope of the day's 
consciousness. But 500 years later we sometimes express the wisdom of 
the ages. For example, when NASA sends a spaceship to Mars it makes sure 
that we don't introduce alien life. Is ICANN taking similar precautions 
with regard to new TLDs?


Tom Lowenhaupt

On 3/29/2011 4:35 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> I am not an executive at a registry, registrar or any other company.  i am currently unemployed and have been for 18 months
> My main concern with the ALAC Scorecard paper is that it asks for a fundamental restructuring of the applicant selection process -  i.e.  it asks for a method whereby applications will be 'limited'.    This is not something the GAC have asked for in their Scorecard,  and in my opinion it would require at least nine months of policy and drafting work to try and find an equitable procedure for such limitation.
> As there has been no plan to limit in the last three versions of the AG I think there are more potential applicants than whatever limitation number is decided.  Simply put,  this limitation mechanism would need to find a rationale way for us to decide that the .NYC application (say) was allowed proceed,  and the .PARIS application (say) was not.
> 'Limitation' is a position the ALAC is free to endorse, but it's not clear to me that ALAC members appreciate the implication of the recommendation.   Does general ALAC membership understand that this recommendation is not requested by the GAC and would substantially delay AG approval?
> Thanks
> Richard
> On Mar 29, 2011, at 9:34 AM, Beau Brendler wrote:
>> In answer to the second part of Avri's question: With all due respect for Antony and Richard, both are CEO/executive-level at for-profit registries and engaged in business development for their companies. Registries are amply represented by other constituencies in ICANN. They hardly need NARALO to get their points across as "individual Internet users."
>> I would go so far to suggest that NARALO and ALAC spend their valuable volunteer time engaging and working with the user community to make sure its point of view, which is not tied to corporate profits, is heard, and let registry and registrar executives use the significant, well-established ICANN venues for their agendas.
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria<avri at ella.com>
>>> Sent: Mar 26, 2011 5:11 PM
>>> To: NARALO Discussion List<na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position	statement on GAC scorecard
>>> Hi,
>>> does this meant the RALO's will do a quick vote on the ALAC scorecard position?  Or will an ALAC vote be enough. Or is the sort of this that the ExecutiveCommittee can take care of?
>>> Also, couldn't either of the two gentleman join their respective RALO as individuals even if they had the opportunity to be observers in a GNSO constituency?
>>> with kind regards,
>>> a.
>>> On 26 Mar 2011, at 14:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>>>> In the meantime, let's first see if there's even interest in principle about
>>>> any of the "impossible" things we're asking for before sinking substantial
>>>> volunteer time into the details.
>>> ------
>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>>> ------
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list