[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Jan 4 14:34:53 UTC 2018

Dear Liz,

good observation. The obvious problem here is:

A good portion of participants in the WT5 have participated in PDP processes since ages; e.g. since 2006 for the first AG! Others however have never participated in any PDP – not even fully read the 2012 AG. For these participants there is a VERY steep “learning curve” – and they tend to reinvent the wheel all over.

Having this inhomogeneity of previous knowledge and experience in mind I think it is fair to assume that the 2012 AG is our “basis”. The very reason we conduct a new PDP is that we are in acknowledgement that it deserves “change”. And for exactly the reasons that you have listed. BUT: Some here might think we are starting “from scratch”. And so far seemingly in the other work tracks that is not what we have done.

So we might take your input in clarifying this important question:
Do we start “from scratch” in the WT5 – or do we take the 2012 AG as a “basis” – knowing that it was implemented in an imperfect way and doesn’t necessarily fully reflect the 2007 PDP recommendations of the GNSO?

I would find it cumbersome if the GNSO would come up with “new” PDP recommendations – and then ICANN staff would (like last time) create their own interpretation via implementation. It would be my wish (and I think I heard this notion before) that THIS time around GNSO and ICANN staff work much closer together. What we do in the work tracks is not anymore creating a constitution – upon then law will be created. The “law” is existing – we are overhauling it. So THIS time there shouldn’t be funny surprises at the end of the final new AG. We seem not to just create new recommendations – but already the new final AG version! 

But this is likely a question that has to be clarified on GNSO level – not on work track level.






From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams at auda.org.au] 
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 3:57 PM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017


Hello Alexander 


You have raised some interesting points.  One I would like to explore more is your assumption “that 2012 AG will likely remain mostly…unchanged”.  I think that is a dangerous assumption because, if were actually the case, it would perpetuate many of the faults and flaws of that process.  And there were many if only evidenced by the facts that there are still, six years on, some applications that have not been finally evaluated and either killed off or put into operational mode.


We all know that the policy development process ended in 2010 and it took many more months to release the AGB.  That was only the first step in a long haul of re-interpretations of the policy into operational, evaluation and implementation changes.  Those changes/modifications/interferences were made for many different reasons and it is those elements that we must capture as we seek to radically improve the approach to any new round.  It is insufficient to accept the 2012 AGB at face value for a default policy position.  This is particularly the case when we should be making strenuous efforts to be inclusive, engaging and innovative so we have system which is an incentive for new ideas to come forward.    



On 4 Jan 2018, at 12:24 pm, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> > wrote:


Dear Timo,


Thanks for bringing this up. You state:
            “The letter of non-objection works as one time sign-off.”


Well: That’s actually subject to the outcome of our recommendations. That’s why we have this WT5! Within the GNSO Subsequent Round WG we work off the 2012 Applicant Guidebook. We strike and add portions, and alter others. The 2012 AG will likely remain mostly and by large unchanged. In the 2012 AG it clearly says:

“It is also possible that a government may withdraw its

support for an application at a later time,including after

the new gTLD has been delegated, if the registry operator

has deviated from the conditions of original support or nonobjection.

Applicants should be aware that ICANN has

committed to governments that, in the event of a dispute

between a government (or public authority) and a registry

operator that submitted documentation of support from

that government or public authority, ICANN will comply

with a legally binding order from a court in the jurisdiction

of the government or public authority that has given

support to an application.”

(quoted from: 2-20, §, last passage on page 71 of 338 of the PDF version “guidebook-full-04jun-12-en”)


City governments are not stupid. They weren’t in the 2012 round, and with a MYRIAD of consultants assisting them in 2020 they will only be much MORE informed. They city Government will have a very detailed agreement with the gTLD operator – and the weak part here is the REGISTRY – not the city! 

Having said this: NO, the letter of non-objection is by no means a “one time sign-off”. It never was. It should never be. Thanks that you brought it up – because like you there might be many who assume it was! Once we work through the WT5-relevant existing 2012 AG provisions this will become much clearer. In respect to country names potentially being operated as gTLDs: obviously the same would apply! A consent (“letter of non-objection”) has to be provided by the RELEVANT Government authority (NOT by the “Ministry for Fishing & Farming”). That consent is revocable. The Government will be in control at all times. Some Governments will decide to run “their” country name themselves (I can imagine Turkey or Belarus wanting to assert FULL control). Others will want to be “out of the loop” as much as possible, like the United States of America: simply because that’s their general attitude; the federal Government has simply no say in such matters – and frankly doesn’t WANT to have one. The less leverage you have – the less you are responsible! Some want “full control”, others want the Government to stay out of as much as possible. Up to the relevant Government.





From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee] 
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 1:30 PM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> 
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017




If we speak only and strictly about business models in the sense how to market and how to monetize the transactions then yes this part is not restricted nor specified by ICANN nor any of the sub organisations. But leaving that aside ICANN dictates great deal on how one can and must run a *gTLD (what data to collect how to verify the data and contacts, where and how to store the data etc) furthermore the city government has almost no control over how the city geo gTLD is run, marketed or used unless it operates the TLD it self. The letter of non-objection works as one time sign-off. If the winner of the "beauty contest" decides not to act according to their initial sales pitch - i do not see on what grounds could the city government request ICANN to stop the delegation or re-delegate it to another entity. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here by pointing me to correct regulation.


Best Regards

Timo Võhmar

Estonian Internet Foundation



On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Alexander Schubert < <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:



Per request of Jeff I am sending this answer to the WT5 email address!

I think we are mixing up stuff here. Nobody (especially not the gNSO or ICANN) wants or can “dictate” anybody how to operate a city gTLD applicant/registry – with the (implied) sole exception of the city government that has to grant the letter of non-objection.

And that is the beauty of the chosen approval model: not ICANN decides who shall operate a city-gTLD but the representatives of the city; on the basis of the operation model brought forward by the applicant. In fact this is the old fashioned “beauty contest” – but outsourced to the city government! And that makes sense: you want that the city is evaluating the model and choses the one that is in the best interest of the CITY – not that some backroom auction winner takes over the city’s online identity.









From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 3:36 AM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight < <mailto:michele at blacknight.com> michele at blacknight.com>; theo geurts < <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl> gtheo at xs4all.nl>; Kavouss Arasteh < <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Rubens Kuhl < <mailto:rubensk at nic.br> rubensk at nic.br>;  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017


Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher.  


Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5.  I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance. 


Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here.  But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5.


The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group.  I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names” 




Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> jeff.neuman at valideus.com or  <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com

T:  <tel:+1%20703-635-7514> +1.703.635.7514

M:  <tel:+1%20202-549-5079> +1.202.549.5079



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight
Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM
To: theo geurts < <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl> gtheo at xs4all.nl>; Kavouss Arasteh < <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; Rubens Kuhl < <mailto:rubensk at nic.br> rubensk at nic.br>;  <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017


I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry.


Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are.


I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on.








Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

 <https://www.blacknight.com/> https://www.blacknight.com/

 <http://blacknight.blog/> http://blacknight.blog/

Intl.  <tel:+353%2059%20918%203072> +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial:  <tel:+353%2059%20918%203090> +353 (0)59 9183090

Personal blog:  <https://michele.blog/> https://michele.blog/

Some thoughts:  <https://ceo.hosting/> https://ceo.hosting/


Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts < <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl> gtheo at xs4all.nl>
Date: Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14
To: Kavouss Arasteh < <mailto:kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl < <mailto:rubensk at nic.br> rubensk at nic.br>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017



I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope. 


Theo Geurts


On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear All, 

First of all Happy new years to all .


While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed





On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl < <mailto:rubensk at nic.br> rubensk at nic.br> wrote:




I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ? 









Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini < <mailto:vanda at scartezini.org> vanda at scartezini.org> escreveu:


Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit 

Vanda Scartezini 

Sent from my iPhone

Sorry for typos 

On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH < <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com> ohlmer at dotzon.com> wrote:





DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
Akazienstrasse 28
10823 Berlin
Deutschland - Germany
Tel:  <tel:+49%2030%2049802722> +49 30 49802722
Fax:  <tel:+49%2030%2049802727> +49 30 49802727
Mobile:  <tel:+49%20173%202019240> +49 173 2019240
 <mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
 <http://www.dotzon.consulting/> www.dotzon.consulting

Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin


Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg [ <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Maxim Alzoba
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05
An:  <mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017


Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5


Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180104/a48af06b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list