I think this "raffle" is an ugly legal kludge, but it's one that comes
closer to the mark than prior efforts. Where random selection is the
best way to allocate slots, just do it and move on.
--Wendy
On 10/14/2012 10:12 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> I'm a bit agnostic about the raffle concept (we're beyond the point of
> constructing anything approaching an ideal solution...mistakes were made
> and we're in cleanup mode) and am open to any and all arguments thereof,
> but the article referenced is neither balanced nor accurate.
>
> Mr. Staub states that ICANN wants "gTLD applicants to travel to
> California". Not true. ICANN will facilitate representation, at no charge,
> for applicants unwilling or unable to come to California. California Penal
> Code §320.5(f)(2) prohibits the sale of raffle tickets online. Things have
> to be done in person.
>
> Mr. Staubb claims ICANN's use of the raffle is a misuse of the raffle
> exemption which, he states, is "designed to allow for not-for-profit
> fundraising". I'd concur that is the spirit of the law but the statute
> itself does allow for raffles that support undefined "beneficial or
> charitable" purposes. ICANN is a registered California charity
> (registration number 111047). The only mention of purposive fundraising in
> California Penal Code §320.5 relates to using raffle proceeds to
> "financially" support another charity.That doesn't apply here. I see no
> misuse.
>
> Raffle proceeds must be used in California. ICANN has stated it will comply
> with this provision. It might be nice if we were told the specifics.
>
> The rest of Mr. Staub's article consists of critiques of any sort of
> drawing or lottery. As stated, I'm a bit agnostic about this as I don't see
> any of the other proposals mentioned as being superior when applied, as
> now, in a post hoc manner. I'd suggest they would simply slow the entire
> process down. Of course, all of this could serve as points of discussion
> for policymaking in further gTLD rounds.
>
> I would note that should the Constituency agree with Mr. Staub that ICANN's
> proposal is a misuse of the raffle statute, the proper way to stop the
> raffle from going forward is to ask California Attorney General Kamala
> Harris to reject ICANN's application for a license on those grounds.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:13 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121013_the_draw_icann_severe_case_of_virus_infection/
>>
>> Friends, should be do something here?
>>
>> wolfgang
>>
>
--
Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
|
