As I understand it, subject to correction, the iTLD's are given priority. All other subcategories are to be included in the raffle. On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > I largely agree with Edward, but one thing concerns me; I've heard that > community-based TLDs will also be subject to the lottery. Can anyone > confirm this? > > If it were true, I think that would be a huge problem and overthrow the > whole community-building process a lot of them have gone through with their > various (largely) civil society communities. > > Maria > > On 14 October 2012 10:12, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]>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 >>> >> >> >