[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Tue Aug 28 15:58:48 UTC 2018
Dear Alexander,
thanks, that really helps. But does this proposal imply that ICANN
should make a decision based on "content", taking the string itself as
being content?
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 28/08/2018 17:17, Alexander Schubert wrote:
>
> 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 <cpwg at icann.org> <mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180828/fdc4eaa2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list