Staub

[Edward Morris]

As I understand it, subject to correction, the iTLD's are given priority.
All other subcategories are to be included in the raffle.


On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>wrote:

> I largely agree with Edward, but one thing concerns me; I've heard that
> community-based TLDs will also be subject to the lottery. Can anyone
> confirm this?
>
> If it were true, I think that would be a huge problem and overthrow the
> whole community-building process a lot of them have gone through with their
> various (largely) civil society communities.
>
> Maria
>
> On 14 October 2012 10:12, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit agnostic about the raffle concept (we're beyond the point of
>> constructing anything approaching an ideal solution...mistakes were made
>> and we're in cleanup mode) and am open to any and all arguments thereof,
>> but the article referenced  is neither balanced nor accurate.
>>
>> Mr. Staub states that ICANN wants "gTLD applicants to travel to
>> California". Not true. ICANN will facilitate representation, at no charge,
>> for applicants unwilling or unable to come to California. California Penal
>> Code §320.5(f)(2) prohibits the sale of raffle tickets online. Things have
>> to be done in person.
>>
>> Mr. Staubb claims ICANN's use of the raffle  is a misuse of the raffle
>> exemption which, he states, is "designed to allow for not-for-profit
>> fundraising". I'd concur that is the spirit of the law but the statute
>> itself does allow for raffles that support undefined "beneficial or
>> charitable" purposes. ICANN is a registered California charity
>> (registration number 111047). The only mention of purposive fundraising in
>> California Penal Code §320.5 relates to using raffle proceeds to
>> "financially" support another charity.That doesn't apply here. I see no
>> misuse.
>>
>> Raffle proceeds must be used in California. ICANN has stated it will
>> comply with this provision. It might be nice if we were told the specifics.
>>
>> The rest of Mr. Staub's article consists of critiques of any sort of
>> drawing or lottery. As stated, I'm a bit agnostic about this as I don't see
>> any of the other proposals mentioned as being superior when applied, as
>> now, in a post hoc manner. I'd suggest they would simply slow the entire
>> process down. Of course, all of this could serve as points of discussion
>> for policymaking in further gTLD rounds.
>>
>> I would note that should the Constituency agree with Mr. Staub that
>> ICANN's proposal is a misuse of the raffle statute,  the proper way to stop
>> the raffle from going forward is to ask California Attorney General Kamala
>> Harris to reject ICANN's application for a license on those grounds.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121013_the_draw_icann_severe_case_of_virus_infection/
>>>
>>> Friends,  should be do something here?
>>>
>>> wolfgang
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121014/5f333c85/attachment-0001.html>