[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 15:06:55 UTC 2018
"........So ICANN is NOT restricting applications (or which strings can be
applied for) - it is restricting access to applicant support!"
Now that's a beaut! Once in a while I get a whole lesson I can teach from
something said in these fora. Here we have it. A carefully calibrated
expression opposing the concept of applicant support but a perfect takeoff
for my lesson on tautology.
-Carlton
==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:32 AM Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well, it's rather categories. And we do restrict applications by category
> all the time (e.g. capital cities)! Btw we also restrict by CONTENT! Think
> about the "sensitive strings" issue.
>
> Plus: Nobody is forced to apply for ICANN applicant support. If you do not
> meet the criteria then you can still apply without support. So ICANN is NOT
> restricting applications (or which strings can be applied for) - it is
> restricting access to applicant support!
>
> In the end of the day otherwise you always face a dilemma:
> If a DONUTS-clone would really base their entire operations in an
> "underserved region" - and thus by ALL MEANS really qualify as a legit
> business operating in the region (without trickstery): would them applying
> for 325 English language based keyword gTLDs in ANY way form or shape
> "serve that region"? It's not about that the registry is local - that
> doesn't reduce the "being underserved" of the region at all. It's all about
> the STRINGS! The STRINGS have to serve the region - so it is LESS
> "underserved". Or do I completely misunderstand the rationale behind
> "support for applicants from underserved regions"?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf
> Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2018 18:59
> To: cpwg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent
> Procedures
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180829/21649f28/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list