[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan

Wed Apr 24 18:06:25 UTC 2019

Yes it would be awesome to define ICANN's and the GAC's 'public interest'
thoroughly and completely, at least with respect to the newTLD program.
That has always been the white whale of ICANN policy development.  I
believe there is a formal organization effort underway to define it for
ICANN, or did that conclude?  (Staff, any update?)  The problem is that
both Board and GAC have always, and always will, insist on the right and
flexibility to define it as they see it, in any given case.  Just like they
did (and are still doing re Amazon, Islam, Halal, GCC and probably others)
at least a dozen times out of the 2012 round.

WT5 would only have scope to discuss public interest as to geo names, which
is only a small slice of the newTLD pie.  I don't know if there has been
discussion of defining 'public interest' in the broader SubPro group, but
it seems a much more appropriate forum than this subgroup.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> > (1) that ICANN received post-application GAC advice that varied from
> the applicant guidebook…
>
>
> Well, if we don’t want that to happen again, PDP and WT5 will have to work
> harder to understand and implement the public interest.
>
> Form my point of view, there were significant lacunae in the 2012 AGB
> regarding the public interest, which still have not been corrected by the
> PDP.
>
> Regards
>
> CW
>
>
> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Katrin – namely two types of complaints:
> (1) that ICANN received post-application GAC advice that varied from the
> applicant guidebook and
> (2) that government public policy interests were considered by some
> governments to have been overlooked
>
> Anne
>
> *From:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH [mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com
> <ohlmer at dotzon.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2019 6:01 AM
> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64
> Kobe, Japan
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
> Hi Anne,
>
> you mentioned in your email that a geo TLD priority will “address
> complaints from the 2012 round.” Can you please point us to the facts which
> complaints have been made at that time?
>
> Thanks,
> Katrin
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> 10823 Berlin
> Deutschland - Germany
> Tel: +49 30 49802722
> Fax: +49 30 49802727
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *Im Auftrag
> von *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 12. April 2019 20:26
> *An:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64
> Kobe, Japan
>
> Speaking personally (and not on behalf of the IPC or anyone else), I think
> the Neustar proposal was just that – a proposal to be considered and
> discussed by the full Working Group.  I don’t think there was any attempt
> at all by Neustar to circumvent that process.
>
> In the interest of continuing that discussion (and taking into account the
> letter from AFRALO/AfrICANN), I personally believe the full Working Group
> should seriously consider fostering good will for the new gTLD program
> generally by giving a priority application window (or windows)  to
>
> 1. Brand applications
> 2. *Bona fide* Community applications  - (easier to have a window than to
> put these in a contention set with applications that are not community
> based and rely solely on CPE)
> 3. Geo applications by government entities (in partnership with private
> entities if desired)  –  to be defined by Work Track 5 (with public
> comment).
> 4. IDNs and Applications from Underserved Regions (in partnership with
> private entities if desired)
>
> *Advantages to this Approach:*
>
> 1. Permitting a brand application window first may calm a lot of the
> discussion about country-by-country legislation to address consumer
> protection in light of restraints imposed by the GDPR.  This is because
> brands could elect to operate their own TLD and advise consumers that the
> brand TLD is the only way to reach genuine product and/or links to sellers
> of genuine product.  This concern is real as evidenced by the attached
> letter from the US Dept of Commerce to ICANN.
>
> 2. Permitting a priority round for Community applications would mean that
> unless the community criteria are somehow not met, the program will be
> promoting free expression for new gTLD applicants (a goal of the program)
> and serving a public good.  Here there will be an opportunity to
> correct/address issues that arose in the last round.
>
> 3. Re a “geo” priority round for governments (and their private sector
> partners if desired), this will also address complaints from the 2012 round.
>
> 4. IDNs and Underserved Region applications (and their private sector
> partners if desired)  – again this gives ICANN the opportunity to express
> concern for the Global Public Interest and accessibility for all Internet
> users worldwide
>
> Anne
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
> Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 office
> 520.879.4725 fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
> <image001.png>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna via
> Gnso-newgtld-wg
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2019 10:41 AM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64
> Kobe, Japan
>
> *[EXTERNAL]*
> ------------------------------
> I believe there was also a suggestion by Kathy Kleiman in Kobe that some
> form of triage could be carried out on all applications with a view to
> identifying contention sets and those could be set aside while the other
> applications are processed in an arrangement similar to that posed in the
> Neustar proposal. Kathy, I don’t want to misrepresent your idea, so please
> correct me if I have this wrong.
>
> I think Kathy’s suggestion would mean that there would be a single
> application window, but the concept of a phased process for evaluation may
> still be workable, once contention sets are set aside.
>
> Donna
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert
> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2019 5:21 AM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64
> Kobe, Japan
>
> Dear Rubens,
>
> Absolutely:  We have defined a number of silos like “brand”, “geo”,
> “generic”, etc. The applications in each silo are NOT “unique”; there will
> be overlapping! We cannot stifle contention and prioritize geo or brand
> applications over others.
>
> However:
> The Neustar concept can still be utilized to a degree:
>
> Have brands and geos putting in their applications – and have those
> evaluated! This alone will take a year. None of them however can ever be
> allocated to ONE applicant before the “last group” (generic terms?) have
> applied for THEIR strings: If there is no contention with the brands and
> geos: GREAT! Then the already evaluated brand and geo TLDs can be
> contracted ASAP and go online. Thus resources are freed up for the other
> applicants. But contention has to be allowed to occur from ALL phases of
> applications.
>
> In theory the brands and geos could even do the “provisional” contracting
> and testing already: but they won’t go into the zone until the last
> application window has closed and no contention has been found. So the day
> the last window closes hundreds of cities can go live. Brands seem to NEVER
> go “live” anyway (save .canon and a few others).
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 09, 2019 3:57 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64
> Kobe, Japan
>
>
> Although this theme wasn't in WT4 or SGB, I'll explicitly take my
> leadership hat off just in case.
>
> That said, I don't see the community being able to settle on a priority
> round. Even though Geos and Brands, the ones that asked for this so far,
> were perceived as the most interesting use cases of the 2012 round, and
> while I believe it's likely it will be the case again in the next
> procedure, there are so many potential clashes in the namespace that there
> will be always someone disgruntled by such priority. One hypothetical would
> be the association of apple farmers wanting .apple while Apple Computer
> also wanted .apple*; the AFRALO-AFRICANN letter is yet another example of
> this.
>
> We need to walk together in this case, and that means allowing every
> possible applicant or possible objector to have their opportunity in the
> upcoming procedure. While in product management it's typical to prioritise
> use cases in lieu
> of others, and a geo/brand round looks pretty much like an MVP (Minimum
> Viable Product) to me, I don't see how we would bring everyone onboard on
> this.
>
>
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
> * Yes, I know only Apple Computer applied in 2012 and they now own .apple
>
>
>
>
> On 9 Apr 2019, at 01:42, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> We received the following correspondence today and wanted to make sure
> that the Working Group was made aware of the statement from AFRALO-AFRICANN.
>
> This is being provided for informational purposes and will be incorporated
> into our discussions as applicable.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
> Senior Vice President
>
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*1751 Pinnacle Drive
> Suite 600, McLean
> VA 22102, USA
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> D: +1.703.635.7514
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
> www.comlaude.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.comlaude.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=zk542U_bu1PbrDeuLXtwszC1lMsR5dtE55jd7WIYzLI&s=0j9C0or7Liumy8AAKVvuiIpR2oI7VPRrocDOpRYXwnw&e=>
>
> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the
> sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This
> message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential
> information. If you have received this message in error, please send it
> back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or
> disclose the information contained in this message or in any
> attachment.Com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__attachment.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=zk542U_bu1PbrDeuLXtwszC1lMsR5dtE55jd7WIYzLI&s=nrWjhbqvRlcWttI8ofid9PTQ7eF6ZkfmkjfKtLuCl5E&e=>
>  Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
>
> *From:* Silvia Vivanco <silvia.vivanco at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 8, 2019 8:59 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at valideus.com>; langdonorr at gmail.com
> *Cc:* ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>; Mohamed Bashir <
> mbashir at mbash.net>; Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>; Sarah
> Kiden <skiden at gmail.com>; Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Fatimata
> com> <fsylla at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan
>
> Dear co-chairs of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG,
>
> On behalf of AFRALO’s Chair Mohamed El Bashir, kindly find attached the
> AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement “New gTLD Subsequent Procedure: Proposal of
> Neustar regarding the upcoming round of New gTLDs" which was discussed and
> approved at the ICANN 64 meeting in Kobe, Japan.
>
> Please be so kind to find attached the statement for your consideration.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Silvia Vivanco
> Senior Manager, At Large Regional Affairs
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Tel: + 51-997510935
>
> <Joint AFRALO-AfrICANN meeting Kobe, March 2019-final.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=zk542U_bu1PbrDeuLXtwszC1lMsR5dtE55jd7WIYzLI&s=Xo7FXR_tlzOgP5IguRyWTgvxspq34ADVe4IniK9-83s&e=>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190424/907b0f57/attachment-0001.html>