RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse

[<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Marilyn that ICANN has and likely will promote HOW to
apply, not WHY.  

Berard

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
> From: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, April 08, 2011 5:48 am
> To: "Mike Palage " <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>,        "Chris Chaplow "
> <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "Bc GNSO list " <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In my comments for BC, I noted that ICANN should include the full story about 
> new gTLDs, not only promotion of how to apply. Millions of users will be 
> highly confused by a campaign that only does the latter. They are users, and 
> many do not want to be suppliers. Some do, or will. We need, as BC, to focus 
> now, as well, on what a responsible communication plan would include re 
> content. I  doubt that a two month communications plan is sufficient. I doubt 
> even more that ICANN staff is thinking )et about not "marketing" new gTLDs, 
> but informing... Vast numbers of users of the kind of changes-- including 
> IDNs, and numbers of new ASCII TLDs. 
> 
> I would like to volunteer to draft a short statement about how business users 
> see the role and purpose of an educational and informational process, which 
> ICANN now calls "communication" plan. We were among those that called for 
> this activity. I think that as business leaders and users, we should 
> contribute to shaping it. 
> 
> It would be inappropriate for ICANN to market new gTLDS,whether ASCII or IDN, 
>  instead, they need an informational and awarenedd message, part of which is 
> how to apply. 
> 
> Marilyn Cade, in my individual member capacity
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:49:12 
> To: <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
> 
> Chris,
>  
>  Speaking individually and not on behalf of all of the co-authors to the
>  article, I have no problem extending the initial communication period if
>  that could create greater consensus within the community.
>  
>  The reason we proposed an initial two month communication period in
>  connection with the string submission period is that under the current
>  guidebook timeline potential applicants need to be able to pay $185,000 and
>  COMPLETE  the entire applications four months after the start of the
>  communication period. Under current Early Warning proposal a prospective
>  applicant only has to pay $10,000 and answer three questions. Then based
>  upon the initial public policy advice of the GAC, prospective applicants
>  would be better informed to make a business decision on whether to proceed.
>  
>  I would tend to agree that not enough attention has been paid to the
>  communication period, but from a triage control standpoint I am trying to
>  prioritize those issues where there is an impasse between the GAC and Board
>  on the remaining issues, and an Early Warning system appears to be a BIG one
>  in my opinion. 
>  
>  In your worst case scenario of ICANN receiving ten thousands of
>  applications, what do you think is the better scenario. CURRENT APPLICANT
>  GUIDEBOOK: ICANN sitting with 1.85 billion in the bank (greater than the GDP
>  of a lot of countries) with ten thousand people demanding that their
>  applications be timely processed or the proposed EARLY WARNING proposal:
>  ICANN sitting with 100 million in the bank recognizing that there is
>  interest in over thousands of unique strings. I would submit it would be a
>  whole hell of a lot easier to slow down and readjust in the later versus the
>  former scenario.
>  
>  Thanks for the constructive feedback.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  
>  Michael
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>  Chris Chaplow
>  Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:30 AM
>  To: 'bc - GNSO list'
>  Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
>  
>  
>  Michael,
>  
>  Thanks for posting the article which has it merits towards solving a
>  difficult problem.
>  
>  I notice that it contemplates reducing the four month communication campaign
>  to two.
>  
>  I think a more hangs on this campaign and we (community) are not paying much
>  attention to it. 
>  
>  In most parts of the world the gTLD program is unknown - we need to ensure
>  the gTLD's are not just open to the enlightened few who attend ICANN
>  meetings.  This is the purpose of the communications plan.  In this present
>  environment we expect about 500 applications.
>  
>  However, with a  successful campaign, and mainstream media running with the
>  story.  I think we will see human 'herd mentality'
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality ; and tens of thousands of
>  applications.
>  
>  The draft communications plan is posted here
>  http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.
>  pdf
>  
>  Apologies for being slightly 'off piste' to the thrust of your article and
>  all the hard work that has gone into it. Nether the less worth a comment.
>  
>  Best regards
>  
>  Chris Chaplow
>  Managing Director
>  Andalucia.com S.L.
>  Avenida del Carmen 9
>  Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
>  1ª Planta, Oficina 30
>  Estepona, 29680
>  Malaga, Spain
>  Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
>  Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
>  E-mail: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com> 
>  Information about Andalucia, Spain.
>  
>  -----Mensaje original-----
>  De: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de
>  Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 07 de abril de 2011 19:27
>  Para: bc-GNSO@xxxxxxxxx
>  Asunto: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
>  
>  
>  Hello All,
>  
>  For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the
>  areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the
>  GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give
>  rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an
>  article attempting to bridge this gap, see
>  http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_phased_array_early_warning_system/. 
>  
>  Any constructive feedback would be welcomed.
>  
>  Best regards,
>  
>  Michael