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 ===