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

Tue Aug 28 16:54:46 UTC 2018

But that has been another argument.. the purpose or use of the
string..which is content.

M

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
wrote:

> 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 <ocl at gih.com>]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 28. August 2018 17:40
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg at icann.org> <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
> <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* CPWG <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> 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 listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180828/8d64744c/attachment-0001.html>