Dear all,
I haven't got any new reaction on Carlos' last proposal so far - is
there any support? Thanks Carlos! Sorry I couldn't get earlier to my
email today, and I should be sending the statement in an hour or so.
If there's no reaction by then (and I assume there could have been so
already since your "offer" was made publicly on our listserv), I
would understand, based on the latest state of play on this issue,
that there is no agreement/consensus - and will mention this
accordingly to the ICANN staff, after removing your proposed edit.
Just for the sake of your information and quick consideration, I'm
sending the semi-final draft including Carlos' phrase (highlight in
blue).
Mawaki
--- Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Mawaki, if Milton and others agree, maybe we could say a phrase
> like
> "NCUC does not rule out the possibility of GNSO proposing the
> formation
> of an immeditate, independent, open, pluralist working group to do
> a
> deep review of the g/sTLD situation and processes and propose a set
> of
> criteria for delegation/redelegation of global domains."
>
> I can go that far for a consensus... :)
>
> abra�os fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >Bravo, Mawaki!
> >
> >thanks for doing this.
> >
> >(btw, my favorite is the replacement of "disaster" with
> "unfortunate situation." how very proper -- LoL)
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> 1/30/2006 4:17 PM >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >Please find attached the draft v.2.
> >
> >O meu amigo Carlos:
> >
> >--- Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Friends, my suggestions:
> >>
> >>- No reference to the 2003 statement. Things change, and I think
> >>the new
> >>proposal contradicts the 2003 one (like 5 for non-profits, 25 for
> >>moneymakers etc). I we are suggesting things will be decided "by
> >>lottery", everyone (bearing or not the $ mark on their foreheads)
> >>will
> >>be qualified to dispute any domain. We should not rule out
> >>repetitions
> >>of the .org case, which is money-making but run by a non-profit
> for
> >>(supposedly) non-profit purposes.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Thinking that it might not be totally meaningless to recall the
> >historical background of our position, I've replaced the phrase
> you
> >pointed out, on gTLD distribution, by "[...]". Is there any
> >persistent contradiction?
> >
> >
> >
> >>- Let us drop expressions such as "market-driven" and so on. We
> >>should
> >>not "expressly support a market-driven approach" as we say in the
> >>statement (geezzz, we are the NCUC, aren't we?) -- again, it
> >>contradicts
> >>our own proposal of a process which is open to all, for profit or
> >>otherwise. Why not just say "expressly support an open,
> transparent
> >>and
> >>neutral approach", which is what we actually explain in the
> >>proposal?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Agreed!
> >
> >
> >
> >>- Since there is no reference to any possibility of an organized
> >>schema
> >>to discuss proposals for a solid set of criteria on
> >>creation/delegation/redeleg of TLDs (it seems NCUC wants to just
> >>submit
> >>its own and not even suggest the possibility of creating a WG for
> >>it), I
> >>would like to propose that I abstain from the proposal. As chair,
> I
> >>am a
> >>facilitator/moderator but also representa a member organization,
> >>and not
> >>necessarily have to agree to any statement, but must carry out
> the
> >>procedures in any case.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What does this mean exactly? Shall I bring up in my note
> forwarding
> >the statement to the ICANN Staff Manager that this is NCUC
> statement
> >except Carlos Afonso? Is there any extablished phrase or jargon
> (you
> >would propose) for that, in case I really have to use it?
> >
> >However, not being well acquainted to politics in this setting, I
> >woder if this isn't going to weaken the NCUC statement. As chair,
> and
> >provided that you are not _against_ the rest of the statement,
> >wouldn't be possible that you take the draft, and carefully
> consider
> >where you can insert your phrase about an "organized schema" (be
> it
> >task force, working group or whatever) to define criteria within a
> >precise timeframe, specifying that that is a proposal from one
> >member; we will then see if other members agree on that, or
> whether
> >there is a balancing act that would be too much to bear. (Kathy,
> we
> >may use the same technique if you are still strong about the
> >single-company domains... maybe you need to convince people about
> the
> >threats for NCUC to have it as more than one member's concern
> :-)).
> >
> >I will be sending the statement out in about 8 hrs from now (the
> time
> >this message is sent).
> >
> >Abraço!
> >
> >Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> >>fraternal regards
> >>
> >>--c.a.
> >>
> >>Adam Peake wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I agree pretty much with the draft Milton sent. A couple of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>changes
> >>
> >>
> >>>(track changes in attached.)
> >>>
> >>>Make the quotes clear.
> >>>in 3, expert groups have not always been ICANN affiliated.
> >>>Afilias isn't American
> >>>using "disaster" is a bit emotional.
> >>>
> >>>And I'd add a final sentence "The addition of new TLDs should be
> >>>predictable in timing and procedure, transparent and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>rule-driven."
> >>
> >>
> >>>(which i think is very close/same to a suggestion made in a
> paper
> >>>
> >>>
> >>by
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mueller and Weinberg?)
> >>>
> >>>Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>At 10:14 PM -0500 1/28/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Mawaki:
> >>>>Thanks for your efforts. I've attached a draft that has edited
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>out a
> >>
> >>
> >>>>few typos, and makes one substantive change: deletion of the
> >>>>paragraph stating unequivocal opposition to so-called
> >>>>"super-sponsored" domains. I do this for several reasons. Most
> >>>>importantly, I question rather strongly the assertion that
> there
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>is a
> >>
> >>
> >>>>"growing push" for these single-company domains. I have been
> >>>>extremely close to the new TLD debate for some time and I see
> no
>
=== message truncated ===
|
