Hi Carlos and all,

Carlos, I love that you're ready to come out with 
ideas. I don't agree with this particular 
suggestion, particularly the moratorium, but keep 
the new ideas coming. I never read your proposal 
to say that you were opposed to the creation of 
new TLDs - I think we're all working towards the 
same goal here. But I think that this idea would 
would slow things down.

I think a 2-4 month timeline for a working group 
is incredibly optimistic. The push back would be 
massive. There would be a fight lasting years 
about make-up and rules for such a group and then 
who knows how poorly the group could be shaped 
(which means the results could actually be 
unfavorable). I think you might be being 
idealistic about the results and implementation 
of the work of such a study group. I see the 
dragged out WHOIS process all over again only 
with an international group that will take even 
longer to piece together.  And Milton is right 
that this could only inadvertently promote the 
argument of scarcity.

I agree NCUC should take an active stance here 
and comment on the current process where 
possible, do press on it, etc, to take the issue 
outside of the common ICANN realm.  I like that 
you're trying to expand the input into ICANN, but 
I think such a process should be tested with a 
less consequential issue than this one. If this 
did slow things down further, and I think it 
would, it could harm rather than help those we're 
trying to involve.

Best,

Frannie

At 11:22 AM -0300 9/27/05, carlos a. afonso wrote:
>Grande Milton,
>
>Your conclusions do not corresponding to my proposal (no surprise
>here!). I have not used the adjective "indefinite". I trust a WG can be
>assembled in a relatively short term and can reach conclusions in 2-4
>months. Also, it is wrong to interpret my proposal as coming from
>someone who is afraid of more TLDs. To the contrary, I am sure technical
>arguments used today to justify keeping TLDs scarce are just paying lip
>service to the TLD business.
>
>And the effect will be the contrary -- one of the results will be to
>create conditions for a much larger g/sTLD space, in practice turning
>these commodities far less scarce and much cheaper (or free) in $$$
>terms. And ICANN will better look for other sources of income :) but by
>then I trust the USG will be wise enough to have signed a host country
>agreement and allowed the transformation of this TLD brokerage house
>into a real governance organization.
>
>And about veto power, do you prefer the ridiculously clumsy approach of
>today, in which after approval ICANN gets bashed and gets firm demands
>for not activating approved TLDs for not considering the many sides of
>the question in its decisions?
>
>Despite claims to the contrary, the issue has *not* been discussed
>"extensively". A bit so only within the realm of the ICANN system, but
>by no means in the broader context (which is from where most of the
>questioning is coming, because is where these decisions impact in real
>life).
>
>Finally, if we do not achieve all of my proposal, we might for example
>not get a moratorium (although I bet even Dr Cerf is thinking about it)
>achieve something which would already be far better than the
>"petit-comité" instance in which these things are always discussed and
>decided -- a working group to open up all issues, questions, and
>criteria to broad discussion.
>
>What are you really afraid of??
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:36:47 -0400
>Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] [Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Brainstorming on an
>answer to the  gTLDs imbroglio...]
>
>>  >>> Norbert Klein <[log in to unmask]> 09/27/05 6:08 AM >>>
>>  >The time ICANN spends on handling the side effects of a scarcity of
>>  >TLDs, and the defensive registrations, sunrise and delete protecting
>>  >measures, is tremendous;
>>
>>  The solution to that is NOT to call for an indefinite moratorium that
>  > prolongs artificial scarcity. I see no connection at all between your
>>  diagnosis and Carlos's proposal.
>>
>>  Defensive registrations and sunrise issues would only be worsened by
>>  Carlos's approach - it would prolong the idea that TLDs are some rare
>>  and dangerous thing that have to be micromanaged in their
>>  introduction,
>>  and that every interest group in the world gets to claim some kind of
>>  veto power or special privilege in their introduction. No.
>>
>>  Delete protection is important for EVERYONE in this market,
>>  commercial
>>  or noncommercial. If you change your registrar (which is an important
>>  right, to foster price and service competition). But be clear about
>>  this: delete protection has absolutely nothing to do with new TLDs.


-- 
*  *  *  *
Frannie Wellings
Free Press
Washington DC Office
http://freepress.net
+1.202.265.1490