Staub

[Maria Farrell]

<redface> Sorry, I'd completely gotten the wrong end of the stick on this.
I jumped to the conclusion that it was about who gets the string...  But
others have since set me right.  </redface>



On 16 October 2012 12:01, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  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>
> 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/20121016/c8a576cc/attachment-0001.html>