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

Tue Aug 21 19:25:07 UTC 2018

I meant a legitimate operation as in formally registered (with ICANN)
registry/registrar.

In our (Pacific) region apart from cctld managers I dont know of any other
registries/ registrars that have been set up. The application is pretty
comprehensive, it must ask for some verification of formal registration.

Although I guess there are shoddy registries around as has been revealed
already from the last round. But does ICANN carry out due diligence on new
applicants (or those that are not so well known) and if they have carried
out full consultation with their communities, etc, etc in order to protect
these communities? Or is this not their job?

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 4:09 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Maureen,
>
> what is a "legitimate operation" for you? Online marketing is legitimate
> for some whilst others call it spam.
> Investing into a domain portfolio is legitimate for some whilst for others
> it is a heresy.
> Speaking out against a government or a rogue company is considered
> legitimate by some whilst for others it has to be stamped down.
>
> Oh -- and ICANN does not do content regulation.
>
> So how are we going to be able to articulate this?
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 21/08/2018 14:33, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
>
> So perhaps some criteria that clarifies a legitimate operation in an
> "underserved region" might be needed?
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please have an eye on "potential abuse". While aiding "underserved areas"
>> in and of itself is a noble course - please always factor in that this
>> might get abused by tricksters.
>>
>> In the case of locally owned and operated geo-applicants for local
>> geo-names: that's a good idea. But:
>>
>> There is precedence that "portfolio applicants" are utilizing offshore
>> legal entities as applicant vehicles. So we can't simply offer "incentives"
>> (e.g. reduced application fees; or applicant support) to entities based in
>> certain jurisdictions per se.
>>
>> We had limited "abuse" in the 2012 round - because back then virtually
>> nobody outside the inner ICANN circles was aware about the opportunity -
>> and nobody imagined the fortunes that could be made (and in many cases
>> WHERE made). This will radically change in 3 years when the 2nd round
>> launches. People will examine the fringe cases in the 2012 round - and
>> create clever schemes to "make money fast".
>>
>> So the question: How exactly do we make sure that an application is a
>> genuine "underserved area" operation? Just because they have a legal entity
>> registered there, and rent a cheap shared office space and have two
>> employees (for $US 150 each per month) sitting there staring holes into the
>> wall?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alexander
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
>> Of Maureen Hilyard
>> Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 02:34
>> To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>
>> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>;
>> Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>; Vanda Scartezini <
>> vanda.scartezini at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent
>> Procedures
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180821/005663e6/attachment-0001.html>