[Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary
Steve Chan
steve.chan at icann.org
Wed Mar 18 22:36:32 UTC 2015
Dear DG Members,
Note that ³Public Interest Guidance² is referenced on the second tab of the
matrix, which is inspired by the 17 Nov Board Resolution, Annex A
(https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356545/resolutions-annex
-a-17nov14-en%281%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425335213000&api=v2).
Staff has included the high level topic in the matrix as a possible area for
policy development and echoes Jeff¹s suggestion to add additional detail
(i.e., questions/comments) to better understand the scope of the topic.
For reference, here is the text from the Board Resolution:
> "The New gTLD Program was developed in the spirit of advancing the public
> interest; however, existing policy advice does not define the application of
> ³public interest² analysis as a guideline for evaluation determinations on
> individual applications. Issues such as those identified in GAC advice on
> safeguards, the development of Public Interest Commitments (PICs), and
> associated questions of contractual commitment and enforcement may be an area
> for policy development.²
>
Additionally, under section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC),
ICANN is committed to examine ³the extent to which the introduction or
expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer
choiceŠ² Presumably this fits within the public interest topic and the DG
and possible future PDP(s) may want to consider this review in their
deliberations.
Best,
Steve
>
From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
Organization: Technicalities
Reply-To: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:28 PM
To: "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and
Executive Summary
Hi,
I think that the program only served one set of interests among the Global
Public Interests: It served the interests of businesses from the global
north. I believe it failed many other perspectives on the Global Public
Interests.
thanks
avri
On 18-Mar-15 15:52, Phil Buckingham wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> Like Bret, I don¹t 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 ³ global
> public² 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>
> [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,
>>
>> I¹m 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
>> ³developing countries² under either the UN or IMF definitions. To me, that¹s
>> a global public interest that was served.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, I don¹t 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 today¹s 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 Shepard¹s 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
>>>> <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
>>>> 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/>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> <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/20150318/09fd47b9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4697 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150318/09fd47b9/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-dg
mailing list