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.
- 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?
- 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.
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 push
>> for it at all, much less a growing one. (Remember, the "O"
>> single-letter domain push was for _second-level_ names, not top
>> level.) Second, I suspect that no one else will know what we mean by
>> "super-sponsored;" I have never seen or heard the term until now.
>> Finally, the only people to weigh in on this was Kathy and I, on
>> opposite sides. It seems there is no real agreement on this.
>>
>> If anyone new objects, go ahead and put that wording back in.
>>
>> As for this question:
>>
>>>>> Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> 1/28/2006 5:36:30 PM >>>
>>>>
>>> what about the idea of "a temporary freeze on
>>> any gTLD move (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent,
>>> qualified pluralist working group (...) prepares a detailed report with
>>> recommendations."?
>>
>>
>> I think there's pretty strong opposition to that position in the
>> constituency. If you want to give Carlos his due, simply add a
>> paragraph to the effect that "one person within the constituency
>> believes that there should be a temporary freeze on any gTLD move
>> (new/deleg/redeleg) until an independent, qualified pluralist working
>> group (...) prepares a detailed report with recommendations," but as
>> Kathy suggested in a prior note that would make the people who want
>> no new TLDs very happy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachment converted: MacOS X:gTLD_NCUC Statement_#2CE54E.doc
>> (WDBN/«IC») (002CE54E)
>
--
Carlos A. Afonso
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto, *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o *
* Coletivo Digital. *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br *
********************************************
|
