RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,
While cleaning up my mail I realized that I never answered your question.
It is a moot problem now, but anyway I was referrring to the proposal that
came from some quarters about a first round for TLDs that (supposedly) "did
not have the problems". I was calling this a "fast track" mirroring the
"fast track" IDN TLDs.
I was personally very skeptical about the "does not have the problem" TLDs,
having witnessed while on the Board the launch of the sTLDs, exactly with
the assumption that sponsored TLDs "would not have the problems" that
generic TLDs would have. I was in favour of the sTLD launch back then, but I
have learned the lesson since.
Happy new year to you, and to all those who are still subscribed to this
list.
Roberto
 
 


  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Saturday, 04 December 2010 17:40
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]


Roberto -- Could you explain in a little more detail what you mean by fast
track new TLD introduction? 

Richard



On Dec 3, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:


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)