Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum
- To: "Ron Andruff " <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike Palage " <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Bc list " <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum
- From: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:37:33 +0000
I support posting individual comments. Mine will say: no fees/no preferential
treatment, and that there are "insider" issues with ICANN declaring the ad hoc
"rump" group a formal process.
But there is a precedent that can be followed. Without prejudice to whether
ICANN has addressed the 4 overarching issues, and the implications of the root
scaling study, which are serious.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:32:01
To: <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum
In response to Mike Palage's email below and EOI article, I believe that he has
put forward some good critical thinking for us all. However, contrary to his
assertion that his comments are at the polar opposite of my EOI posting, I am
of like mind with regard to much that Mike has said.
I take issue with the use of the terms "front runners" and "insiders" for the
simple reason that using such names are a cheap shot. They are insulting to
many of us who put in the hours and hours of volunteer work within ICANN (in my
case, participating on the GNSO Operations Work Team and the OSC, along with
responding to BC issues). It poses the question: Does the fact that a regular
participant in the debates and dialogues within the BC and/or the greater ICANN
community for the last decade earn one such titles simply because they are also
party to the new gTLD process? If so, I fear Mike may have tarred himself with
his own brush. But, at the end of the day, all of that is of no relevance.
The bigger issue is this: With ICANN having belabored the issue of introducing
new TLDs for years on end - virtually from its inception until now - is it
possible that anyone, any company, or any other entity interested in this
process doesn't know about it? For my part, I find that hard to believe. I
believe that those who choose to hide behind this strawman argument rather than
engaging in a dialogue on ways forward, e.g., running processes in parallel, as
is suggested by the very existence of the EOI, are being obstructionist.
In closing, I would like to reiterate two things. First, I am in agreement
with Mike that a principled way forward vis-à-vis the EOI is the ONLY way to
go. I fully support that in whatever shape or form it should take. Second, I,
too, am recommending that you post your comments! Comments need to be posted
on both the EOI and DAG v3 changes/amendments. I sense people are tiring of
the process and thus are becoming more willing to let things go that they may
have held strong feelings about. This is tantamount to abandoning our bottom
up process, so I, like Mike, strongly encourage you to post your positions to
make sure that staff hears enough voices to draw appropriate conclusions from,
rather than having them make judgment calls.
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor
New York, New York 10001
V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11
F: +1 212 481 2859
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Michael D. Palage
Sent: 2009-11-18 20:03
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Expression of Interest Public Forum
Listed below is an article that I wrote in connection with ICANN's proposed new
gTLD Expression of Interest initiative. While I think there is some good that
could come of this proposal, as I have tried to articulate in this article
there is potentially a lot of bad, especially when you look at the public forum
which has basically been flooded by prospective TLD applicants. There is less
than 10 days before ICANN staff summarizes the public forum input for
consideration by the ICANN Board at its early December meeting.
As Mike Rodenbaugh previously noted there is probably not enough time for the
constituency to reach an opinion, and Ron Andruff has already taken a position
in line with the prospective TLD applicants which is kind of the polar opposite
to the position advocated in my paper.
This is kind of a big issue which appears to be getting lost in the DAG 3.0
comment period and the upcoming holiday season. I really do believe individual
BC members should weigh in on this important issue one way or another.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2009
New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution
Palage Offers Suggestions to Ensure Useful Insight is Gathered in Process
WASHINGTON D.C. - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) should look to precedents if it chooses to move forward with soliciting
Expressions of Interests for new Generic Top Level Domains, states Adjunct
Fellow Michael Palage in "New gTLD Expressions of Interest:
Proceed with Caution <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> ," released today by
The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Previous EOIs were successful in helping
ICANN gather pertinent data to judge likely gTLD demand and make fact-based
In the paper <http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> , Palage, a former ICANN board
member, states that the Expression of Interest, if well executed, could help to
address a number of the remaining issues with implementation of new gTLDs. If
executed improperly, however, the initiative will likely erode confidence in
the new gTLD process and negatively impact ICANN's evaluation in the upcoming
reviews under ICANN's new Affirmation of Commitments.
Palage warns against proposals to make participation in the EOI a condition for
participating in the first new gTLD round. He also warns against instituting
substantial fees to file, stating that both proposals deviate from established
precedent. Palage explains that such actions would transform a fact-based
gathering EOI into a "front-running scheme for insiders to reserve their space
at the front of the new gTLD line."
The proposal would fail to create a level playing field for potential
applicants. Moreover, this proposed front-running approach would likely only
increase ICANN's litigation risks by appearing to grant a license or privilege
in a process which may ultimately diverge from present expectations.
"The path forward for ICANN is a road that it has previously traveled - and one
which has served it well," concludes Palage. "There is little benefit to
deviating from these established precedents to benefit the narrow interests of
a small number of TLD applicants whose business plans have been jeopardized
because of ICANN's decision to listen to the global community by slowing down
and getting things right."
"New gTLD Expressions of Interest: Proceed with Caution
<http://ga1.org/ct/-7Xbtas1Mm48/> " is available on the PFF website
The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a market-oriented think tank that studies
the digital revolution and its implications for public policy. It is a
501(c)(3) research & educational organization.