[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
richardtindal at me.com
Wed Mar 30 21:45:19 UTC 2011
As the AG batch limit is already 500 I think the ALAC paper is saying it should be less than that. A number hasnt been proposed
but I assume it would be a fairly low number (e.g. 100 or less applications ). My point is that if we have 150 potential applicants then we need a mechanism
for deciding which 100 proceed and which 50 do not.
If we used some determination of worthiness based on public interest operation then PARIS and NYC might both proceed. Then again, if worthiness
was the published mechanism we might find a bunch of new applications emerge that are very focused on worthiness and collectively these new applications
push PARIS and/ or NYC out.
If we decide random selection is the only fair mechanism (for example) we might again, find that PARIS and/ or NYC are excluded.
Until we define the mechanism for 'limiting' its impossible to say who would be successful.
PARIS and NYC were just examples. Below you've suggested that , but we would certainly have to find a way to decide
On Mar 29, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> On 3/29/11 6:31 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>> Does general ALAC membership understand that a recommendation to numerically limit the first round would substantially delay approval of the Applicant Guidebook? I'm interested to know if this point is well understood.
> Nope. I can't say that I've come to that understanding.
> Quoting from your earlier note ...
>> 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.
> While possible in theory, just as in theory a maximum of 500
> applications in a round could mean zero, or one, my thinking is that a
> significant number of the municipal applications I know about --
> Barcelona, Paris, New York, ... will be in any 500 or fewer first
> tranche of applications, even if the majority of the first, and any
> subsequent tranche of applications are made by domainers or brand
> managers or generic standard .biz/.info imitators or IDN extensions of
> Verisign's .com/.net/.name set of franchises.
> In theory of course there could be 501 public interest applications by
> non-profit entities representing public administrations, and a 500 per
> tranche limit would necessitate finding the one application that would
> be deferred ...
> If you're going to attempt to persuade the NARALO subscribers perhaps
> using a less unlikely hypothetical than an exclusive choice between
> one of the first three city administrations to actually engage in the
> selection of a registry operator would be more credible.
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
More information about the NA-Discuss