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

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Some of the questions/comments I have received passed on without
attribution.  I asked people to send them in directly if they wished. 
But just so the points aren't missed.



> /IG F/
>
> Was community contention resolution efficient? What improvements could
> be made to improve efficiency for all parties? Impacts on efficiency
> included: CPE could only begin once all contention set applications
> had cleared initial and/or extended evaluation (this was later
> changed). CO was extremely expensive and in Euros. CPE took up to six
> months. Nearly all community applications resulted in some form of
> Ombudsman/DIDP/RfR/CEP/IRP action.  
>
>
> /IG H /
>
> What alternative processes – e.g. qualitative assessments – apart from
> or in tandem with a points or scoring system for assessing the
> existence of a community and the community relationship with applicant
> could yield more fulsome and accurate results?
>
> Could community experts, e.g. sociologists, anthropologists,
> economists, etc. be engaged in the development and implementation of
> this recommendation?
>
> Were the goals & intent of the community priority process clearly
> communicated to prospective applicants? Could clearer communication
> result in better quality applications (i.e. non-election by parties
> likely to fail and increased election by parties likely to prevail). 
>
> /IG P /
>
> Are these the correct criterion for assessing the existence of a
> community?
>
> Are they based on research?
>
> Could they have been peer-reviewed by a panel of academic and
> community experts?
>
> What other approaches for verifying community could exist? 
>
>  
and
>
> 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;
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
> 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….
>
>  
>
> 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.
>
>  
>
> 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…
>
>  
>
> 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 ?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> 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…
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150330/c89387d7/attachment.html>