[bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse

Michael D. Palage michael at palage.com
Fri Apr 8 11:49:12 UTC 2011


Speaking individually and not on behalf of all of the co-authors to the
article, I have no problem extending the initial communication period if
that could create greater consensus within the community.

The reason we proposed an initial two month communication period in
connection with the string submission period is that under the current
guidebook timeline potential applicants need to be able to pay $185,000 and
COMPLETE  the entire applications four months after the start of the
communication period. Under current Early Warning proposal a prospective
applicant only has to pay $10,000 and answer three questions. Then based
upon the initial public policy advice of the GAC, prospective applicants
would be better informed to make a business decision on whether to proceed.

I would tend to agree that not enough attention has been paid to the
communication period, but from a triage control standpoint I am trying to
prioritize those issues where there is an impasse between the GAC and Board
on the remaining issues, and an Early Warning system appears to be a BIG one
in my opinion. 

In your worst case scenario of ICANN receiving ten thousands of
applications, what do you think is the better scenario. CURRENT APPLICANT
GUIDEBOOK: ICANN sitting with 1.85 billion in the bank (greater than the GDP
of a lot of countries) with ten thousand people demanding that their
applications be timely processed or the proposed EARLY WARNING proposal:
ICANN sitting with 100 million in the bank recognizing that there is
interest in over thousands of unique strings. I would submit it would be a
whole hell of a lot easier to slow down and readjust in the later versus the
former scenario.

Thanks for the constructive feedback.

Best regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Chris Chaplow
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:30 AM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse


Thanks for posting the article which has it merits towards solving a
difficult problem.

I notice that it contemplates reducing the four month communication campaign
to two.

I think a more hangs on this campaign and we (community) are not paying much
attention to it. 

In most parts of the world the gTLD program is unknown - we need to ensure
the gTLD's are not just open to the enlightened few who attend ICANN
meetings.  This is the purpose of the communications plan.  In this present
environment we expect about 500 applications.

However, with a  successful campaign, and mainstream media running with the
story.  I think we will see human 'herd mentality'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality  and tens of thousands of

The draft communications plan is posted here

Apologies for being slightly 'off piste' to the thrust of your article and
all the hard work that has gone into it. Nether the less worth a comment.

Best regards

Chris Chaplow
Managing Director
Andalucia.com S.L.
Avenida del Carmen 9
Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo
1ª Planta, Oficina 30
Estepona, 29680
Malaga, Spain
Tel: + (34) 952 897 865
Fax: + (34) 952 897 874
E-mail: chris at andalucia.com
Web: www.andalucia.com
Information about Andalucia, Spain.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] En nombre de
Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 07 de abril de 2011 19:27
Para: bc-GNSO at icann.org
Asunto: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse

Hello All,

For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the
areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the
GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give
rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an
article attempting to bridge this gap, see

Any constructive feedback would be welcomed.

Best regards,


More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list