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

Tue Aug 28 15:17:02 UTC 2018

Dear Olivier,

Well, for starters we could look at the desired STRING! Somebody please correct me, but it looks likely to me that an applicant from an underserved region would apply for a string with regional connotation:

*        A geo-name such as a region or city

*        A regional, cultural gTLD ; like .cat – for the Catalonian language community (Catalonia of course is one of the most well developed areas in Europe and NOT an “underserved region”; just meant as an example or the type of string!)

*        An indigenous name based gTLD

*        If a generic keyword: probably one in the local language! Like “.web” in their language – NOT in English!

I would assume that the over-overwhelming majority of strings desired by applicants in need of support would follow such pattern. And of these strings the only ones interesting for people who want to game the system are cities! So we could simply say: If a city name is being applied for by an applicant who wants to be supported, then it must be a city in their region AND they have to apply with “geo-use intent” (which triggers the requirement of a letter of support by the city Government, which “gamers” likely will have difficulties to acquire or find too cumbersome).

Gamers will likely apply for names like:

*        Any “premium three-letter”-based gTLD

*        Cities in industrialized countries (by using the “non-geo use” loophole; through which no letter of support needs to be obtained: something that we HAVE to stop at least for SIZEABLE cities – I need more support for that in WT5. Right now anybody could snag up “.shanghai” without letter of support, by claiming that “no geo-use” is intended, but the registrars will sell it to people in Shanghai anyways: not the registries fault, no problem: LOOPHOLE! Remember: Registries do not sell ANYTHING to end-users, that’s done by registrars. And registrars do not have to abide by the “non-geo use” intent claimed by the applicant. So my suggestion: If a city has more than X citizens: It would be treated like a capital city; MANDATORY letter of support! X could be anywhere between 250k to 1 Million people. Below that threshold cities are not economically interesting for gamers)

*        Generic English keyword based gTLDs

Does this help?

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond [mailto:ocl at gih.com] 
Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2018 17:40
To: alexander at schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

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 <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> 
Cc: CPWG  <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> <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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g> &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/20180828/893e1ee7/attachment-0001.html>