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... :) abraços 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 >>>> >>>> >>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 -- distribui��o Debian CDD Linux * >>* orientada a projetos de inclus�o digital * >>* com software livre e de c�digo aberto, * >>* mantida pela Rits em colabora��o com o * >>* Coletivo Digital. * >>* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br * >>******************************************** >> >> >> > > > > -- 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 * ********************************************