Our statement on gTLD

Tue Jan 31 13:17:06 CET 2006

Mawaki, if Milton and others agree, maybe we could say a phrase like
"NCUC does not rule out the possibility of GNSO proposing the formation
of an immeditate, independent, open, pluralist working group to do a
deep review of the g/sTLD situation and processes and propose a set of
criteria for delegation/redelegation of global domains."

I can go that far for a consensus... :)

abraços fraternos

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>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).
>
>AbraÃ§o!
>
>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/ï¿½ICï¿½) (002CE54E)
>>>>        
>>>>
>>-- 
>>
>>Carlos A. Afonso
>>Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br 
>>********************************************
>>* Sacix -- distribuiï¿½ï¿½o Debian CDD Linux   *
>>* orientada a projetos de inclusï¿½o digital *
>>* com software livre e de cï¿½digo aberto,   *
>>* mantida pela Rits em colaboraï¿½ï¿½o com o   *
>>* Coletivo Digital.                        *
>>* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
>>********************************************
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************