[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Aug 28 14:40:05 UTC 2018
Dear Alexander,
how do you get around countering this type of gaming of the system? As
several people have said from the experience of the current round, it's
that the rich multinationals will find a way around restrictions, but
local communities will find the restriction so hard to navigate that the
restriction will eventually work against them. Short of a much more in
depth and expensive due diligence process to find out who the real
applicants are, I do not know how to check that.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 21/08/2018 15:49, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> Well,
>
>
>
> As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some
> small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just
> a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that
> costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to
> fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation
> and need office space in the prime business district of the capital
> and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to
> fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small
> “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries –
> and voila: you have a local “operation”.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:*Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent
> Procedures
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto:roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>>
> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net
> <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg at icann.org
> <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>>; Christopher Wilkinson
> <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>;
> Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini at gmail.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> > cw at christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180828/420e912f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list