Our statement on gTLD

[Milton Mueller]

Bravo, Mawaki!

thanks for doing this. 

(btw, my favorite is the replacement of "disaster" with "unfortunate situation." how very proper -- LoL)

>>> Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> 1/30/2006 4:17 PM >>>
Please find attached the draft v.2.

O meu amigo Carlos:

--- Carlos Afonso <ca at RITS.ORG.BR> wrote:

> Friends, my suggestions:
> 
> - No reference to the 2003 statement. Things change, and I think
> the new
> proposal contradicts the 2003 one (like 5 for non-profits, 25 for
> moneymakers etc). I we are suggesting things will be decided "by
> lottery", everyone (bearing or not the $ mark on their foreheads)
> will
> be qualified to dispute any domain. We should not rule out
> repetitions
> of the .org case, which is money-making but run by a non-profit for
> (supposedly) non-profit purposes.

Thinking that it might not be totally meaningless to recall the
historical background of our position, I've replaced the phrase you
pointed out, on gTLD distribution, by "[...]". Is there any
persistent contradiction?

> 
> - Let us drop expressions such as "market-driven" and so on. We
> should
> not "expressly support a market-driven approach" as we say in the
> statement (geezzz, we are the NCUC, aren't we?) -- again, it
> contradicts
> our own proposal of a process which is open to all, for profit or
> otherwise. Why not just say "expressly support an open, transparent
> and
> neutral approach", which is what we actually explain in the
> proposal?

Agreed!

> 
> - Since there is no reference to any possibility of an organized
> schema
> to discuss proposals for a solid set of criteria on
> creation/delegation/redeleg of TLDs (it seems NCUC wants to just
> submit
> its own and not even suggest the possibility of creating a WG for
> it), I
> would like to propose that I abstain from the proposal. As chair, I
> am a
> facilitator/moderator but also representa a member organization,
> and not
> necessarily have to agree to any statement, but must carry out the
> procedures in any case.

What does this mean exactly? Shall I bring up in my note forwarding
the statement to the ICANN Staff Manager that this is NCUC statement
except Carlos Afonso? Is there any extablished phrase or jargon (you
would propose) for that, in case I really have to use it? 

However, not being well acquainted to politics in this setting, I
woder if this isn't going to weaken the NCUC statement. As chair, and
provided that you are not _against_ the rest of the statement,
wouldn't be possible that you take the draft, and carefully consider
where you can insert your phrase about an "organized schema" (be it
task force, working group or whatever) to define criteria within a
precise timeframe, specifying that that is a proposal from one
member; we will then see if other members agree on that, or whether
there is a balancing act that would be too much to bear. (Kathy, we
may use the same technique if you are still strong about the
single-company domains... maybe you need to convince people about the
threats for NCUC to have it as more than one member's concern :-)).

I will be sending the statement out in about 8 hrs from now (the time
this message is sent).

Abraço!

Mawaki

> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Adam Peake wrote:
> 
> >
> > I agree pretty much with the draft Milton sent. A couple of
> changes
> > (track changes in attached.)
> >
> > Make the quotes clear.
> > in 3, expert groups have not always been ICANN affiliated.
> > Afilias isn't American
> > using "disaster" is a bit emotional.
> >
> > And I'd add a final sentence "The addition of new TLDs should be
> > predictable in timing and procedure, transparent and
> rule-driven."
> > (which i think is very close/same to a suggestion made in a paper
> by
> > Mueller and Weinberg?)
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 10:14 PM -0500 1/28/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> >> Mawaki:
> >> Thanks for your efforts. I've attached a draft that has edited
> out a
> >> few typos, and makes one substantive change: deletion of the
> >> paragraph stating unequivocal opposition to so-called
> >> "super-sponsored" domains. I do this for several reasons. Most
> >> importantly, I question rather strongly the assertion that there
> is a
> >> "growing push" for these single-company domains. I have been
> >> extremely close to the new TLD debate for some time and I see no
> push
> >> for it at all, much less a growing one. (Remember, the "O"
> >> single-letter domain push was for _second-level_ names, not top
> >> level.) Second, I suspect that no one else will know what we
> mean by
> >> "super-sponsored;" I have never seen or heard the term until
> now.
> >> Finally, the only people to weigh in on this was Kathy and I, on
> >> opposite sides. It seems there is no real agreement on this.
> >>
> >> If anyone new objects, go ahead and put that wording back in.
> >>
> >> As for this question:
> >>
> >>>>>  Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> 1/28/2006 5:36:30 PM >>>
> >>>>
> >>> what about the idea of "a temporary freeze on
> >>> any gTLD move (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent,
> >>> qualified pluralist working group (...) prepares a detailed
> report with
> >>> recommendations."?
> >>
> >>
> >> I think there's pretty strong opposition to that position in the
> >> constituency. If you want to give Carlos his due, simply add a
> >> paragraph to the effect that "one person within the constituency
> >> believes that there should be a temporary freeze on any gTLD
> move
> >> (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent, qualified pluralist
> working
> >> group (...) prepares a detailed report with recommendations,"
> but as
> >> Kathy suggested in a prior note that would make the people who
> want
> >> no new TLDs very happy.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Attachment converted: MacOS X:gTLD_NCUC Statement_#2CE54E.doc
> >> (WDBN/�IC�) (002CE54E)
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br 
> ********************************************
> * Sacix -- distribui��o Debian CDD Linux   *
> * orientada a projetos de inclus�o digital *
> * com software livre e de c�digo aberto,   *
> * mantida pela Rits em colabora��o com o   *
> * Coletivo Digital.                        *
> * Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
> ********************************************
>