Re: [council] Draft staff paper on "New TLD Questions" - CORRECTION NEEDED
Philip is correct, and I support his recommended change. I would add that the matrix concept itself is problematic, as some of the groups to be consulted are too vague and sufficiently far outside ICANN's control to make inclusion in a decision matrix appropriate (e.g. "academics," "trade organizations"). We should certainly strive for broad outreach, but vaguely defined groups aren't in the critical path of the consultation process. As currently phrased, the questions in the matrix also assume that certain controversial questions already have been resolved in a particular way. For example: "Determine appropriate uses for one-time, positive revenue derived from allocation process." I'm not certain we will recommend that ICANN charge registry fees in excess of its actual costs. Previous allocation efforts have been based on a cost-recovery method. I am certainly aware of the "auction" concept, but I think the question is still open as to whether the wealthiest registry operator is necessary the best choice. I expect that developing nations will have significant concerns about allocating global resources in a way that takes businesses based in their countries out of the running. I would recommend separating the matrix from the list of questions, if not deleting it entirely.
Bret
Philip Sheppard wrote:
Olof, thank you for the posting of this paper.I and my constituency will spend time to fully review but for now I believe there is one essential correction that needs to be made *_before it goes any further_*. The GNSO is the policy development body on gTLD matters within ICANN. The GNSO is not one of a range of bodies to be consulted. The consultation of other bodies is being done to inform the GNSO. Please change the matrix of contributions to show the GNSO sits at the top of the input tree and all other consultations feed into policy development within the GNSO.Thank you.Philip Sheppard Attachment:
smime.p7s
|