RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roberto,

 

You could not be more correct that businesses need certitude; something that
has been sorely lacking through this entire 3-year process.  THAT is the key
point because it calls all of the issues the community is dealing with
vis-à-vis the VIWG or the length of this new gTLD process in general, into
question.  The other critical issue is how staff deals with community
comments.  For example, several constituencies have raised the issue of
community applicants clearing such an inordinately high threshold (14 of 16
points) to demonstrate nexus to their communities on multiple occasions, yet
staff continues to ignore the requests to lower the threshold by one point
to make it a more fair approach.  These examples of the Board taking
decisions without community consensus or staff slanting the AGB to fit their
desires rather than taking into account the community?s wishes are
continuing to pile up and have now reached the point that we may only need
one straw to break the camel?s back.  The unusually short public comment
period that ends on the day of the Board meeting (meaning that staff will
never be able to synthesize the comments in a manner that serves the best
interests of the community; read: appropriate consideration and appropriate
changes made to the final final AGB) could be that straw?  I, for one, am
coming to Cartagena with some trepidation because it appears that our
bobsleigh is coming into the closing turns at a speed that is more than the
sleigh can handle to stay on the track? 

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 5:45 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] 

 

The debate on new TLDs is warming up. Most probably, it is in view of the
ICANN meeting opening very soon, with the participants on their way to
Colombia.

This piece of information (see
<http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf>
http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf) is, IMHO, one of
the heavy contributions that will determine the outcome of the meeting, and
the Board's decisions.

I have no intention to resurrect the WG, but let me remind that I was among
the ones who were skeptical about the way the discussion was closed by the
Board resolution, and feeling that we were failing to produce some minimum
results that the Board could claim as bottom up consensus to justify/support
its decisions.

My question is now on whether there will be a sort of "fast track" new TLD
introduction, while waiting for the full PDP development, that might at
least establish the principle (and test the marketplace) of a round of
generic TLDs.

But the "real" question is to the people, if there were any in this WG, who
were positioning their contributions based on considerations of what would
be the "default" decision by the Board. If you are accepting a compromise
you can live with in a bottom up process, you might lose something, but you
know what you are losing, you have certitudes and stability for the
business. If you rely on the top down decisions of a body that has not
received community consensus records, you might think (hope?) that the
decision will favour your business, but the reality is that you do not know.
The final decision, if it is not based on (and supported by) a community
consensus, will depend on factors that are out of control, like influence of
lobbying on a multicultural Board, influence of different powers like
Governments, the changes in the Board composition at the moment a decision
is taken, and so on.

I believe that business needs certitudes (disclaimer: IANABP - I Am Not A
Business Person), and unless you are absolutely sure you can control the
other factors that can (and will) influence the Board's decision, you might
be better off facing the devil of a compromise consensus you know rahter
than the devil of an unpredictable different outcome you do not know.

Best regards, 
Roberto 

(watching an ICANN meeting from the distance, for a change)