[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

Mon Aug 20 23:33:57 UTC 2018

I agree Roberto about the differences in "underserved" areas. Because they
are on the outside edge of the circle of developed and even developing
countries, there are specific reasons for their "underserved-ness" which
makes them different from each other..

When it comes to the next round, I agree that each underserved region
should really come up with a business plan of its own in relation to how it
can make pertinent use of any new gTLDs.

I look at my own region and we need to put a lot more effort into our ISOC
chapter and our Pacific ALSes to help them understand what we are talking
about when we mention new gTLDs and other internet governance issues that
they need to know about if our region is to make more meaningful and
productive use of the Internet.

So little time and so much to do...

M

On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Roberto Gaetano <
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Maureen and Vanda,
> I think that we all have ideas about how to address some issues that are
> related to the fact that there are some underserved (so far) geopolitical
> regions. As a matter of fact, if we do a thorough analysis the
> “underserved” areas are not only geopolitical, but also of different kind.
> The question is whether the next round does have as objective to address
> in priority these areas, or whether is only based on maximisation of the
> profit.
> I remember a similar discussion 20+ years ago, when I was working at ETSI,
> about the coverage of the GMS in Africa. The answer I got back then is that
> “there is no business case in Africa”. Seen in 2018, this position is
> ridiculous, but aren’t we reproducing the same cultural pattern today with
> TLDs?
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
>
> On 08.08.2018, at 19:13, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE PROMOTION IN SOUTH HEMISPHERE
>
> And focus on making a splash in the Pacific region as well..
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Vanda Scartezini <
> vanda.scartezini at gmail.com
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Some comments on Christopher points
>
> a) Community Priority Evaluations
> what was relevant during 2012 was the fact that all the effort asked for
> community to prove support ( ltos of money to do this around the world )
> was ignored during the analysis period and several community ( I have
> promoted few) faced auction though their competitors had no prove of
> community interest.
> Then, if we will impose some demands to community we need to make sure
> those items will be considered and none without similar qualifications will
> be compete with them.
>
> b)metrics
> Metrics for end users are security, respect to privacy and " continuity".
> If organization has no capacity to support initial investment so it will
> fail in a couple years and all registrant had done to promote the new
> domain will be waste of money.
>
> I have been promoting here 2012 round. But it was this, myself talking
> with several organizations to enter. We had a reasonable success but the
> reality was there was NO PROMOTION of 2012 round in the South Hemisphere.
> Nothing in digital news in local languages. ICANN came one day to Sao Paulo
> Brazil and I asked people to join - we got 50 attendees . We had 8 ( from
> 11 applied in Brazil)  that attended this meeting . Nothing else was done
> in South America.
> When I have done a survey in 2015 talking with big companies around South
> America I found just 1 that said they have no intention to apply if there
> was another round, all others responded YES, they had interest, please
> alert us, if there will be another round.
> So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE PROMOTION IN SOUTH HEMISPHERE
>
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj
> 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
> Sorry for any typos.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8/8/18, 07:49, "GTLD-WG on behalf of wilkinson christopher" <
> gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of
> cw at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>    Good afternoon:
>
>    I generally concur with Holly's priorities in addition to my questions
> regarding Competition and Jurisdiction.
>
>    Regards
>
>    CW
>
>
> El 8 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:09 Holly Raiche <
>
> h.raiche at internode.on.net> escribió:
>
>
>
> Folks
>
> Having gone through the Report and Appendix C, the issues that ALAC
>
> has been concerned with before and - I am suggesting - should concentrate
> on in its response include:
>
>
> Community Priority Evaluations
> These applicants had priority, but the definition was narrow and few
>
> applications made it through on this. The definition needs to be revisited,
> and the evaluation more transparent and predictable- and finalised BEFORE
> evaluation
>
>
> Metrics
> Unde the general heading, the question is asked whether there should
>
> be success metrics.  We said - and I believe should continue to say - have
> metrics as to what success looks like from an ALAC perspective.
>
>
> PICS
> Under global public interest, the question is asked whether there
>
> should continue to be PICS.  They are there because we argued for them -
> and still should
>
>
> Applications from outside the US/Europe
> We expressed concern that most of the applications came from the US
>
> and, to a lesser extent, Europe.  We said this came down to a number of
> factors, including
>
> Length and complexity of Applicant Guidebook - it should be more
>
> accessible, comprehensible, in different languages
>
> Need for applicant support - maybe a dedicated round for developing
>
> countries
>
> Possibility of variable fees
> IDNs
> The report mentions need for further work to be done on Universal
>
> Acceptance
>
>
>
> Happy to discuss
>
> Holly
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
>    _______________________________________________
>    CPWG mailing list
>    CPWG at icann.org
>    https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>    _______________________________________________
>    GTLD-WG mailing list
>    GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>    https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
>    Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/
> display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.
> org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180820/0752ca2f/attachment.html>