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/ >