[Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary

Wed Mar 18 19:52:54 UTC 2015

Hi Avri,

Like Bret, I don't understand your comments re Round 1.

I think what Round 1 has proved ( although I admit it is very very early
days ), is that the global public interest has been served, but the " global
public" is simply not aware ( yet) that 1400+ new gTLD have and will  open
up the marketplace to the global public - the consumer , to give them
better  choice(s) , more competition ( therefore lower prices ),better trust
in the DNS. We now have IDNs in Arabic, Chinese, Hindu, Russian  for the
developing BRIC economies.

However I agree the Joint Applicant Support programme was a complete failure
by ICANN, with only ONE application going through evaluation. I am sure
others have already identified this problem. A new JAS 2 programme will need
to be developed / incorporated within Round 2 application  processes and
procedures and should, I feel, be added into the Matrix.

Regards,

Phil

Phil Buckingham

CEO, Dot Advice Limited

Corporate Advisor, MultiLingual Internet Group Inc.

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: 18 March 2015 17:52
To: gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and
Executive Summary

Hi,

I agree one aspect of the Global Public Interest (GPI0 in one way of
understanding GPI was indeed served as you describe below. 
The issue is that the GPI is broader than that and is something that needs
specific work and specific focus. 

Both in understanding it in respect to gTLDs  and knowing how to take it
into account in subsequent 'rounds'.

I believe it is a top level issue that needs to dealt with in many respects.

avri

On 18-Mar-15 13:17, Bret Fausett wrote:

Avri,  

I'm not sure I understand this completely, so I am hoping you can provide
more details. My first reaction is that the global public interest was
served by expanding the choices available when registering a domain name,
bringing competition to the registry services space, and allowing people and
companies to name themselves online with a label that provides greater
semantic meaning. I also have statistics that show me that a meaningful
number of registrations in Uniregistry TLDs come from countries identified
as "developing countries" under either the UN or IMF definitions. To me,
that's a global public interest that was served.

Now, I don't propose to have that debate here, but is what I wrote above
addressed to your issue, or were you raising something else? I think we
already have identified issues around making sure that future registries
come from developing economies. 

         Bret

On Mar 18, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

Hi

I think one whole group of issues is missing  from we need to have dealt
with in the review.

Did the gTLD server the pubic interest?  It what ways could it have done
this better?  In terms of the future how do we design the policy to make
sure that the global public interests, such as inclusion of developing
economies and poor communities is supported?  This is one area where many
consider the gTLD to have bee na complete failure and to not have that
represented as a section of our work seems a deficit.

avri

On 16-Mar-15 12:50, Steve Chan wrote:

Dear DG Members,

As discussed on today's group call, staff is circulating the updated Issues
/ Recommendations matrix that was last edited by Jeff Neuman, along with his
short explanation regarding the proposed groupings he included in the
document (see below). I have also included his updated Executive Summary. As
noted by Jeff on the call, the co-chairs request feedback by 30 Mar 2015 and
preferably before, so as to be able to include for discussion during the DG
call on 30 Mar 2015 at 14:00 UTC.

Note, I have incorporated Philip Shepard's proposed changes into tab 2 of
the attached Excel sheet.

"I refer to the Matrix that has Policies A-G, 1-20 and IG A through IG-R.
With respect to the Potential New topics I refer to Excel row number in that
2nd tab)

Group 1:  Overall Process / Support / Outreach :  A, C, 1, 9, 10 (concept),
12 (Concept), 13, IG A, IG B, IG C, IG D, IG E, IG I, IG M, IG N, IG O, IG
Q, New Row 3)

Group 2:  Legal / Regulatory: 5, 10 (substance), 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, IG J,
IG K, IG L, New Row 2, New Row 4, New Row 5, New Row 6

Group 3:  Contentions / Objections & Disputes:  G, 2, 3, 6, 12, 20, IG F, IG
H, IG P, IG R

Group 4:  Internationalized Domain Names:  B, 18

Group 5:  Technical and Operations:  D, E, F, 4, 7, 8, New Row 7 (Name
Collision)"

Best,

Steven Chan
Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>  

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

-- 

Bret Fausett, Esq.

General Counsel, Uniregistry, Corp.

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

mobile +1 310 985 1351

office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 

UTC -8 hours  . http://uniregistry.link

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

  _____  

 <http://www.avast.com/> 

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150318/a7be9ea6/attachment.html>