[Gnso-newgtld-wg] On copy-pasting applications

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

There is no difference whatsoever in the 'multistakeholder character' of
this WG vs the Task Force.  And it is offensive to those of us who spent
literally thousands of hours developing the AGB to hear the notion that it
is 'part of the problem and not of the solution'.  Anyway, you do not get
to tie up this WG, costing literally tens of thousands of dollars per hour
in lost time of its members, simply because you have an idea.  You need to
prove a problem, and that someone other than you thinks its' a real problem
in need of a solution.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com


On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:43 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Dear Mike:
>
> Well, we disagree.
>
> The multi-stakeholder character of the current PDP is quite different from
> the 2012 AGB. In this case I think that the 2012 AGB is part  of the
> problem, not part of the solution.
>
> Good night
>
> CW
>
>
> On 25 Mar 2019, at 22:31, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
>
> I would consider such a discussion to be a large waste of time.  Not least
> because such a discussion was had ad nauseum in the run-up to 2012, and it
> was realized then as it inevitably will be realized again now that there is
> no way to stop multiple applications -- however you define that.  Also, I
> would strongly argue against your premise that they are a bad thing, a
> premise for which you offer no factual support whatsoever.  As it has
> turned out, portfolio applicants have been some of the most innovative and
> commercially successful operators, and have contributed to geographic
> diversity rather than denigrated from it.
>
> What is the problem you are trying to solve, and what proof do you have
> that it is a problem for anyone else?  Without that explanation and
> evidence, we should not take up this point for discussion.  We have plenty
> more left to talk about, already on the agenda.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:19 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>> Dear Rubens, Dear All:
>>
>> The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to
>> presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple
>> TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications.
>> If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice,
>> competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity.
>> Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations
>> would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view
>> to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways
>> that I would prefer not to.
>>
>> May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of
>> preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a
>> minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> CW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi folks.
>> >
>> > On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to
>> replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two
>> different things:
>> > 1) If the application should or must have this feature
>> > 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy
>> perspective
>> >
>> > On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base
>> the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal
>> more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether
>> copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be
>> discouraged or disallowed.
>> >
>> > On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established
>> that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG
>> should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the
>> applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy
>> forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large
>> number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but
>> expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least
>> allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
>> >
>> >
>> > Rubens
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>> > Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190325/b20bb224/attachment.html>