[Chapter-delegates] A workable, gTLDs process, now

[Christopher Wilkinson]

Well, Franck: In principle, I do not want to see a GAC veto,  
particularly as articulated by the US DoC paper (is that still their  
final position?)

Also,the question has been raised on the Governance Lists in the  
context of Milton Mueller's proposal for a Petition. Now, there are  
more than 40 posts on the subject.
So I have not signed the Petition until I have understood all the pros  
and cons.

It would be better if ICANN could explain themselves better, rather  
than burying the arguments in pages and pages of documentation.

Regards,

CW






On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:48, Franck Martin wrote:

> What do you think of GAC having veto power?
>
> Franck Martin
> http://www.avonsys.com/
> http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys
> http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys
> twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys
>
> Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o
> Application Monitoring: http://gurl.im/4d39Gu
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Wilkinson" <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> To: "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>,  
> "ECC Council" <ecc-council at isoc-ecc.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 February, 2011 2:35:10 PM
> Subject: [Chapter-delegates] A workable, gTLDs process, now
>
> Good evening:
>
> As I understand it there will be an important meeting early next week
> in Brussels which may influence what ICANN does with the new gTLD
> process.
> For those of you who will be present, I would recommend the following
> line:
>
> 1.	To disaggregate the process. First, to give priority to the IDN
> applications. Secondly to separate the public interest, linguistic/
> cultural and geographical/city proposals from all the rest.
> 	Thirdly to address the <.brand> issues as an entirely distinct
> process where, with WIPO, the related competition and trademark issues
> can be considered; i.e. postpone.
> 	Fourth, to address the <.generic> proposals: these may be supported
> provided that they are associated with a rigorous registration policy,
> subject to public consultation. i.e. not to postpone, but they will
> take longer.
>
> 2.	Regarding Vertical Integration, I have seen nothing which would
> lead me to amend the posting which I made last August, and which for
> some reason has not been cited in any of the ICANN Briefing Papers:
> 	
> 	http://forum.icann.org/lists/vi-pdp-initial-report/pdfFZQIl7H2Er.pdf
>
> 	In short, the attempt last year within GNSO to associate the new gTLD
> process with backward integration between Registrars and Registries
> has (a) caused a breakdown in the bottom-up consensus process (b) been
> a cause of further delay and (c) flies in the face of ICANN's mandate
> as the custodian of competition policy in the DNS. No.
>
> I shall post this message to the Lists with which I am associated:	
> ISOC, At Large, Governance.
>
> With regards to you all,
>
> CW
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates