<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear Alexander,<br>
<br>
how do you get around countering this type of gaming of the system?
As several people have said from the experience of the current
round, it's that the rich multinationals will find a way around
restrictions, but local communities will find the restriction so
hard to navigate that the restriction will eventually work against
them. Short of a much more in depth and expensive due diligence
process to find out who the real applicants are, I do not know how
to check that.<br>
Kindest regards,<br>
<br>
Olivier<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/08/2018 15:49, Alexander Schubert
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:01a101d43955$dc827e90$95877bb0$@schubert.berlin">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Well,
<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">As
I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some
small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap
labor. So just a company registration, physical office and
one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year.
Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes.
If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office
space in the prime business district of the capital and
university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money.
But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You
rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two
part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local
“operation”. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Alexander<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Maureen Hilyard [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com">mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> CPWG <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cpwg@icann.org"><cpwg@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG]
[registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">So perhaps some criteria that clarifies a
legitimate operation in an "underserved region" might be
needed?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 AM,
Alexander Schubert <<a
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
Please have an eye on "potential abuse". While aiding
"underserved areas" in and of itself is a noble course -
please always factor in that this might get abused by
tricksters.<br>
<br>
In the case of locally owned and operated geo-applicants
for local geo-names: that's a good idea. But:<br>
<br>
There is precedence that "portfolio applicants" are
utilizing offshore legal entities as applicant vehicles.
So we can't simply offer "incentives" (e.g. reduced
application fees; or applicant support) to entities
based in certain jurisdictions per se.<br>
<br>
We had limited "abuse" in the 2012 round - because back
then virtually nobody outside the inner ICANN circles
was aware about the opportunity - and nobody imagined
the fortunes that could be made (and in many cases WHERE
made). This will radically change in 3 years when the
2nd round launches. People will examine the fringe cases
in the 2012 round - and create clever schemes to "make
money fast".<br>
<br>
So the question: How exactly do we make sure that an
application is a genuine "underserved area" operation?
Just because they have a legal entity registered there,
and rent a cheap shared office space and have two
employees (for $US 150 each per month) sitting there
staring holes into the wall?<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Alexander<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: GTLD-WG [mailto:<a
href="mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard<br>
Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 02:34<br>
To: Roberto Gaetano <<a
href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: Holly Raiche <<a
href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>>;
CPWG <<a href="mailto:cpwg@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">cpwg@icann.org</a>>;
Christopher Wilkinson <<a
href="mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu"
moz-do-not-send="true">cw@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>>;
Vanda Scartezini <<a
href="mailto:vanda.scartezini@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">vanda.scartezini@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG]
[registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures<br>
<br>
I agree Roberto about the differences in
"underserved" areas. Because they are on the outside
edge of the circle of developed and even developing
countries, there are specific reasons for their
"underserved-ness" which makes them different from
each other..<br>
<br>
When it comes to the next round, I agree that each
underserved region should really come up with a
business plan of its own in relation to how it can
make pertinent use of any new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
I look at my own region and we need to put a lot
more effort into our ISOC chapter and our Pacific
ALSes to help them understand what we are talking
about when we mention new gTLDs and other internet
governance issues that they need to know about if
our region is to make more meaningful and productive
use of the Internet.<br>
<br>
So little time and so much to do...<br>
<br>
M<br>
<br>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Roberto Gaetano
< <a href="mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Maureen and Vanda,<br>
> I think that we all have ideas about how to
address some issues that <br>
> are related to the fact that there are some
underserved (so far) <br>
> geopolitical regions. As a matter of fact, if
we do a thorough <br>
> analysis the “underserved” areas are not only
geopolitical, but also of different kind.<br>
> The question is whether the next round does
have as objective to <br>
> address in priority these areas, or whether is
only based on <br>
> maximisation of the profit.<br>
> I remember a similar discussion 20+ years ago,
when I was working at <br>
> ETSI, about the coverage of the GMS in Africa.
The answer I got back <br>
> then is that “there is no business case in
Africa”. Seen in 2018, this <br>
> position is ridiculous, but aren’t we
reproducing the same cultural <br>
> pattern today with TLDs?<br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Roberto<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 08.08.2018, at 19:13, Maureen Hilyard <<a
href="mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">maureen.hilyard@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE
PROMOTION IN SOUTH <br>
> HEMISPHERE<br>
><br>
> And focus on making a splash in the Pacific
region as well..<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Vanda
Scartezini < <br>
> <a href="mailto:vanda.scartezini@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">vanda.scartezini@gmail.com</a><br>
><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Some comments on Christopher points<br>
><br>
> a) Community Priority Evaluations<br>
> what was relevant during 2012 was the fact that
all the effort asked <br>
> for community to prove support ( ltos of money
to do this around the <br>
> world ) was ignored during the analysis period
and several community ( <br>
> I have promoted few) faced auction though their
competitors had no <br>
> prove of community interest.<br>
> Then, if we will impose some demands to
community we need to make sure <br>
> those items will be considered and none without
similar qualifications <br>
> will be compete with them.<br>
><br>
> b)metrics<br>
> Metrics for end users are security, respect to
privacy and " continuity".<br>
> If organization has no capacity to support
initial investment so it <br>
> will fail in a couple years and all registrant
had done to promote the <br>
> new domain will be waste of money.<br>
><br>
> I have been promoting here 2012 round. But it
was this, myself talking <br>
> with several organizations to enter. We had a
reasonable success but <br>
> the reality was there was NO PROMOTION of 2012
round in the South Hemisphere.<br>
> Nothing in digital news in local languages.
ICANN came one day to Sao <br>
> Paulo Brazil and I asked people to join - we
got 50 attendees . We had <br>
> 8 ( from<br>
> 11 applied in Brazil) that attended this
meeting . Nothing else was <br>
> done in South America.<br>
> When I have done a survey in 2015 talking with
big companies around <br>
> South America I found just 1 that said they
have no intention to apply <br>
> if there was another round, all others
responded YES, they had <br>
> interest, please alert us, if there will be
another round.<br>
> So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE
PROMOTION IN SOUTH <br>
> HEMISPHERE<br>
><br>
> Vanda Scartezini<br>
> Polo Consultores Associados<br>
> Av. Paulista 1159<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">> <<a
href="https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g</a>>,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">> cj<br>
> 1004<br>
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil<br>
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253<br>
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464<br>
> Sorry for any typos.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 8/8/18, 07:49, "GTLD-WG on behalf of
wilkinson christopher" < <br>
> <a
href="mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
on behalf of <br>
> <a href="mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu"
moz-do-not-send="true">cw@christopherwilkinson.eu</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Good afternoon:<br>
><br>
> I generally concur with Holly's priorities
in addition to my <br>
> questions regarding Competition and
Jurisdiction.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> CW<br>
><br>
><br>
> El 8 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:09 Holly Raiche
<<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>>
escribió:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Folks<br>
><br>
> Having gone through the Report and Appendix C,
the issues that ALAC<br>
><br>
> has been concerned with before and - I am
suggesting - should <br>
> concentrate on in its response include:<br>
><br>
><br>
> Community Priority Evaluations<br>
> These applicants had priority, but the
definition was narrow and few<br>
><br>
> applications made it through on this. The
definition needs to be <br>
> revisited, and the evaluation more transparent
and predictable- and <br>
> finalised BEFORE evaluation<br>
><br>
><br>
> Metrics<br>
> Unde the general heading, the question is asked
whether there should<br>
><br>
> be success metrics. We said - and I believe
should continue to say - <br>
> have metrics as to what success looks like from
an ALAC perspective.<br>
><br>
><br>
> PICS<br>
> Under global public interest, the question is
asked whether there<br>
><br>
> should continue to be PICS. They are there
because we argued for them <br>
> - and still should<br>
><br>
><br>
> Applications from outside the US/Europe We
expressed concern that most <br>
> of the applications came from the US<br>
><br>
> and, to a lesser extent, Europe. We said this
came down to a number <br>
> of factors, including<br>
><br>
> Length and complexity of Applicant Guidebook -
it should be more<br>
><br>
> accessible, comprehensible, in different
languages<br>
><br>
> Need for applicant support - maybe a dedicated
round for developing<br>
><br>
> countries<br>
><br>
> Possibility of variable fees<br>
> IDNs<br>
> The report mentions need for further work to be
done on Universal<br>
><br>
> Acceptance<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Happy to discuss<br>
><br>
> Holly<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>