I agree with Marilyn that ICANN has and likely will promote HOW to<br>
apply, not WHY. <br>
<br>
Berard<br>
<br>
> -------- Original Message --------<br>
> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse<br>
> From: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@hotmail.com><br>
> Date: Fri, April 08, 2011 5:48 am<br>
> To: "Mike Palage " <michael@palage.com>, "Chris Chaplow "<br>
> <chris@andalucia.com>, "Bc GNSO list " <bc-gnso@icann.org><br>
> <br>
> In my comments for BC, I noted that ICANN should include the full story about new gTLDs, not only promotion of how to apply. Millions of users will be highly confused by a campaign that only does the latter. They are users, and many do not want to be suppliers. Some do, or will. We need, as BC, to focus now, as well, on what a responsible communication plan would include re content. I doubt that a two month communications plan is sufficient. I doubt even more that ICANN staff is thinking )et about not "marketing" new gTLDs, but informing... Vast numbers of users of the kind of changes-- including IDNs, and numbers of new ASCII TLDs. <br>
> <br>
> I would like to volunteer to draft a short statement about how business users see the role and purpose of an educational and informational process, which ICANN now calls "communication" plan. We were among those that called for this activity. I think that as business leaders and users, we should contribute to shaping it. <br>
> <br>
> It would be inappropriate for ICANN to market new gTLDS,whether ASCII or IDN, instead, they need an informational and awarenedd message, part of which is how to apply. <br>
> <br>
> Marilyn Cade, in my individual member capacity<br>
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T<br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com><br>
> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:49:12 <br>
> To: <chris@andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso@icann.org><br>
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse<br>
> <br>
> Chris,<br>
> <br>
> Speaking individually and not on behalf of all of the co-authors to the<br>
> article, I have no problem extending the initial communication period if<br>
> that could create greater consensus within the community.<br>
> <br>
> The reason we proposed an initial two month communication period in<br>
> connection with the string submission period is that under the current<br>
> guidebook timeline potential applicants need to be able to pay $185,000 and<br>
> COMPLETE the entire applications four months after the start of the<br>
> communication period. Under current Early Warning proposal a prospective<br>
> applicant only has to pay $10,000 and answer three questions. Then based<br>
> upon the initial public policy advice of the GAC, prospective applicants<br>
> would be better informed to make a business decision on whether to proceed.<br>
> <br>
> I would tend to agree that not enough attention has been paid to the<br>
> communication period, but from a triage control standpoint I am trying to<br>
> prioritize those issues where there is an impasse between the GAC and Board<br>
> on the remaining issues, and an Early Warning system appears to be a BIG one<br>
> in my opinion. <br>
> <br>
> In your worst case scenario of ICANN receiving ten thousands of<br>
> applications, what do you think is the better scenario. CURRENT APPLICANT<br>
> GUIDEBOOK: ICANN sitting with 1.85 billion in the bank (greater than the GDP<br>
> of a lot of countries) with ten thousand people demanding that their<br>
> applications be timely processed or the proposed EARLY WARNING proposal:<br>
> ICANN sitting with 100 million in the bank recognizing that there is<br>
> interest in over thousands of unique strings. I would submit it would be a<br>
> whole hell of a lot easier to slow down and readjust in the later versus the<br>
> former scenario.<br>
> <br>
> Thanks for the constructive feedback.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> <br>
> Michael<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of<br>
> Chris Chaplow<br>
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:30 AM<br>
> To: 'bc - GNSO list'<br>
> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Michael,<br>
> <br>
> Thanks for posting the article which has it merits towards solving a<br>
> difficult problem.<br>
> <br>
> I notice that it contemplates reducing the four month communication campaign<br>
> to two.<br>
> <br>
> I think a more hangs on this campaign and we (community) are not paying much<br>
> attention to it. <br>
> <br>
> In most parts of the world the gTLD program is unknown - we need to ensure<br>
> the gTLD's are not just open to the enlightened few who attend ICANN<br>
> meetings. This is the purpose of the communications plan. In this present<br>
> environment we expect about 500 applications.<br>
> <br>
> However, with a successful campaign, and mainstream media running with the<br>
> story. I think we will see human 'herd mentality'<br>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality and tens of thousands of<br>
> applications.<br>
> <br>
> The draft communications plan is posted here<br>
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en.<br>
> pdf<br>
> <br>
> Apologies for being slightly 'off piste' to the thrust of your article and<br>
> all the hard work that has gone into it. Nether the less worth a comment.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards<br>
> <br>
> Chris Chaplow<br>
> Managing Director<br>
> Andalucia.com S.L.<br>
> Avenida del Carmen 9<br>
> Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo<br>
> 1ª Planta, Oficina 30<br>
> Estepona, 29680<br>
> Malaga, Spain<br>
> Tel: + (34) 952 897 865<br>
> Fax: + (34) 952 897 874<br>
> E-mail: chris@andalucia.com<br>
> Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com> <br>
> Information about Andalucia, Spain.<br>
> <br>
> -----Mensaje original-----<br>
> De: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de<br>
> Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 07 de abril de 2011 19:27<br>
> Para: bc-GNSO@icann.org<br>
> Asunto: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Hello All,<br>
> <br>
> For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the<br>
> areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the<br>
> GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give<br>
> rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an<br>
> article attempting to bridge this gap, see<br>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_phased_array_early_warning_system/. <br>
> <br>
> Any constructive feedback would be welcomed.<br>
> <br>
> Best regards,<br>
> <br>
> Michael<br>
<br>