[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard

Avri Doria avri at ella.com
Wed Mar 30 02:33:40 UTC 2011


As far as I know NCUC has not taken a specific position on city names or any other specific TLD or TLD types.

I also expect that every potential applicant for a community TLD hates the AG point system, it is rather odious to everyone and few will pass I warrant, and imagine that they all could recommend something special that would work better for their application than for some other application.  But it has survived the gauntlet of community opinion, and while in the best of all possible worlds, we could hope for something better (I myself have sent in comments arguing against aspects of the process) this is not the best of all possible worlds and will never be.

When the program was first designed we knew that it could not be perfect from every perspective and that there would be learning for the following rounds.  We can spend the rest of eternity trying to get the perfect application process that will please everyone and even by the end of days, we will not have succeeded.  I trust the Board to find the right balance to make sure that it is a good process.


On 29 Mar 2011, at 21:00, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

>> One of the fundamental points about the ALAC position, and one can assume the At-Large position, is that they do not mind a delay in the start of the new gTLD program.
> Speaking personally, prior to the Cartagena meeting I wrote Heather Dryden and Peter Dengate Thrush on one point in their exchange of notes in September and November -- city names -- and took the opportunity of being able to speak with Heather personally, as well as the GAC delegates with the issue responsibility. That letter is attached should anyone feel compelled to read it.
> That Friday when the Board declined to vote to approve DAGv5 as-is, I was in fact pleased that the opportunity to develop policy concerning city names had not been overcome by events.
> To pick an example already used in this thread, I think the choice of the DOITT as the applicant for .nyc is a better choice than the outcome of an auction for .nyc, and while a DOITT application for .nyc could be brought as a Community-Based application, and could be crafted to meet the 14/16 requirement to prevail over all other applications, except those Community-Based applications brought by other other parties, perhaps a New York City based public interest organization not affiliated with the City's executive, in general, the name resources of non-capital municipalities is not something to allocate by private auction, nor is ICANN the proper beneficiary of the "market value" of the name resources of non-capital municipalities.
> I'm not suggesting what the NCUC's position is on the disposition of the name resources of urban agglomerations, as I don't actually know what position the NCUC currently holds on this, or any policy question.
> Eric
> <letter-to-peter-and-heather-re-city-names.pdf>------
> 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