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, Attachment:
smime.p7s
|