Yes, I see what you mean. It's ugly but likely not worth dying in a ditch
over.
Thanks!
On Sunday, 14 October 2012, Desiree Miloshevic wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2012, at 15:37, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> +1
>
> it was always going to come down to some sort of random distribution. e.g.
> lottery.
> another way, perhaps, would have been to do Keep It Simple and go for an
> alphabetical order -
> equally (un)fair, - fairness being contained in the fact that the chosen
> processing method would have been a surprise to all the new gTLD
> applicants. ops, and unfairness being in the fact that applicants and the
> strings find themselves at the other side of the alphabet, .. .www . zzz
>
> Desiree
> --
> > --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/
>
|
