[Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s)

Fri Sep 5 19:41:14 UTC 2014

Hi,

this is Alexander Schubert – just joined this group.

Regarding the GEO-identifiers: As most of you know I am a fan of them since 2004 (dotBerlin) and I continue to be a fan in the next round – actively preparing an application. What I never understood is why there are ANY restrictions on strings which the respective country anyways needs to approve. Let’s say the Government of the Russian Federation wanted to apply for “.russia” in order to represent themselves at this TLD: Why should they be deprived of it? The U.S. has been granted with .gov – why not allow other countries to present their Government under a vanity TLD? It’s one of the superfluous rules being forced upon the world by GAC to “gain control” – not understanding that actually they take control away. If France wants to present its Government and tourism under .france domains: What is it the business of ANYONE to prevent them from doing it? And if they do not want it: They simply refuse to issue the necessary “non-objection letter”.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:21 PM
To: Steve Chan
Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s)

Steve,

I have the following issues to raise:

- The question of new gTLD strings that are unacceptable, e.g. for geographic 

  TLDs, would not appear to be adequately defined in the current AGB. With

  regards to geographic regions and territories, the applicant is directed to

  UN listings for determining whether or not the application is aceptable, yet

  in the cases of Amazon and Patagonia, neither were on these listings, and

  this has caused conflictive situations which are unfortunate. Other considerations

  involving religion and generic terms are not clearly defined, and there is a

  clause in the AGB that effectively gives the GAC right of veto over anything

  one of their members might object to (this was added on the eve of the

  Singapore announcement of opening of applications). Some work needs to

  be done to improve this, providing clarity to applicants in a future round.

- Concerns expressed by the IP community should be carefully considered.

  The strong opposition to the new gTLD programme from that sector,

  resulted in several years of delays and postponements to the opening

  of the applicant window. Any outstanding issues that remain unsolved

  in this respect, should be reviewed.

- The instrument known as the COI (a letter of credit in favor of ICANN

  for the sum of U$S 140.000 which, prior to signing the Registry

  Agreement with ICANN, must be deployed, thus inmobilizing this

  sum for several years), should be revised as it constitutes an

  additional entry barrier to communities and non-profit organizations

  who wish to apply for a new gTLD.

- The mechanisms developed by the JAS working group, to support

  applicants with financial constraints, need to be reviewed and

  improved. The very limited takeup of this option during the

  application phase, would appear to signal the need for change.

Regards

Tony Harris

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org> > wrote:

Dear DG Members,

This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.

Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.

Best,

Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org> 

direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410

tel: +1.310.301.5800

fax: +1.310.823.8649

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20140905/13f6a0af/attachment-0001.html>