Staub

[Milton L Mueller]

I am not sure I understand your point, Maria - how does the raffle affect community building? It doesn't determine who gets the string, it determines the order in which they go into the root, once the application is approved

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:56 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Staub

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20121016/ef90a3b9/attachment-0001.html>