[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix

Tue Apr 7 09:26:17 UTC 2015

Michael

Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one application each?

Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply circumvented

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media releases & coverage
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM
To: 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri at acm.org; gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix

Hello All,

Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes.  Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future.

I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets.  This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants.

This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_consequences/  I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago.

Best regards,

Michael

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM
To: avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>; gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix

Avri,

GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND
1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts...
This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors;
Agree
2. Create for community based applications‎ some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so.
For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents.
For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense.
While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons:

·         For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture)

·         Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner.
3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world ‎.
Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies….
There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination
If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example:

·         Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”).

·         An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply)
4. Clear rules against filibustering
Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat.
At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them.
Agree
5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute
Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches…
Agree
6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN
Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big  3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ?
Absolutely
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE
‎A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators;
B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish.
If the scope is to evaluate ‎communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on;
C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door.
D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it
E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants
F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers…
I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone:  + 216 41 649 605
Mobile: + 216 98 330 114
Fax:       + 216 70 853 376
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________
[Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avast.com/>

Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!<http://www.avast.com/> est active.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150407/3a3f025b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 524 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150407/3a3f025b/image001-0001.jpg>