<redface> Sorry, I'd completely gotten the wrong end of the stick on this. I jumped to the conclusion that it was about who gets the string... But others have since set me right. </redface> On 16 October 2012 12:01, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I am not sure I understand your point, Maria – how does the raffle > affect community building? It doesn’t determine who gets the string, it > determines the order in which they go into the root, once the application > is approved**** > > ** ** > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of > *Edward Morris > *Sent:* Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:56 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Staub**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >