Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
- To: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 08:37:50 +0100
It is usual for you to provide validation and research that supports
your points. You have mentioned "negative externalities" -- apart
from the need to protect legitimate trademarks through existing
mechanisms and introducing improvements where we can, what other
negative externalities are there?
You mention "not demonstrated any widespread support outside of a
tiny minority who wish to direct profit from their launch". How does
that account for people wanting a TLD that is a not for profit,
public benefit, non commercial TLD? More broadly, what is wrong with
making a profit? On a very superficial reading, running a TLD
registry is both legal and not always profitable.
You have said that "profits which are geared to short-term thinking
and which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the
public." Could you be more precise about long-term and lasting
damage to the public?
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757
On 14 May 2009, at 20:23, George Kirikos wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to
the GAC (draft attached) in
response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO.
The GAC letter raises important issues which demonstrates that the new
gTLD program needs far greater study before being capable of being
launched. They reinforce the resounding comments made by the vast
majority of the public (including businesses) who've made thoughtful
comments that do not see any need for new gTLDs, and actually are
actively opposed to their introduction due to their negative
externalities. New gTLD advocates have not demonstrated any widespread
support outside of a tiny minority who wish to directly profit from
their launch, profits which are geared to short-term thinking and
which can and will cause long-term and lasting damage to the public.
New gTLDs are falsely portrayed by ICANN as "win-win", but they are
truly "win-lose" (with the number of losers facing damages swamping by
far any "winners").
We do not support the GNSO Council's draft response letter, because it
is written based on the assumption that new gTLDs have to be launched.
A more measured response would admit not only the possibility, but the
reality that major threshold issues remain unresolved. Indeed more
threshold issues are being discovered as the implications of adding
large numbers of new gTLDs are thought through by more and more
members of the public.