[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 15:40:41 UTC 2018
I concur with everything said here!
-Carlton
==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:38 AM Andrew Mack <AMack at amglobal.com> wrote:
> Agree with both Vanda and JZ. Having sat on JAS and done work for CCTRT
> on this topic, I think the "biggest problem" is actually a basket of
> things, but agree its not cash on hand.
>
> Market size is limited by awareness -- awareness of ICANN ecosystem,
> awareness of the new gTLD process/window and awareness of how to use a new
> gTLD. Promoting ICANN and new gTLDs generally is hard -- the audience is
> too broad. But our research showed that focusing on business model for
> potential applicants (especially for those who express some interest) may
> provide a big chance to advance. We interviewed dozens of different
> potential candidates for new gTLDs for our CCTRT work and many came back
> saying, in essence, "we didn't have a clear vision of how we were going to
> use a new gTLD to reach our customers or what success model would look
> like". As a result, they couldn't make the case to management.
>
> Where the industry is newer/smaller/less developed, getting targeted info
> out to the community (and to associations that might represent multiple
> potential applicants) around how some of the successful new gTLDs have been
> structured and their thinking about business model would seem to be the
> best kind of direct support -- open to all kinds of applicants, building on
> past learnings. Support of any kind (technical, financial) is only
> meaningful if people truly have a good idea of how they'll make a go of a
> new gTLD.
>
>
> Andrew Mack
> Principal
> C: +1 (202) 256-1077
> O: +1 (202) 642-6429
> Skype: Andrew.Mack
>
>
>
> www.amglobal.com <http://www.amglobal.com/> | amack at amglobal.com
>
>
>
> On 8/29/18, 8:21 AM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Jonathan Zuck" <
> gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of
> JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
>
> I believe the biggest challenge in "underserved regions" is not cash
> on hand for some entrepreneur but market size. If there is currently low
> takeup of ccTLDs why do we believe there will be big takeup of some new
> gTLD? A part of me believes we shouldn't be focused on applicants from
> underserved areas but instead understanding the dynamics of the second
> level domain market in those places as that has to grow first.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of
> Vanda Scartezini
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:12 PM
> To: alexander at schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent
> Procedures
> Importance: High
>
> Last round we also have some applicants theoretically based in this
> region, since who applied was a local person, but the organization was not.
> The focus was for this region, so I can understand this as a valid
> strategy: apply for a TLD for geographic region interest even if your
> organization is located elsewhere.
>
> So, just to the applicant be from an underserved region does not mean
> that the organization is from that region or after get it will have local
> service.
>
> In thesis, I am against incentives to avoid fake and unfair
> competition. Anyway, have an address shall not be the focus of any
> incentive.
>
> To really avoid unfair competition ( people set a temporary address in
> underserved region) you need to have too much bureaucracy which shall not
> be the case.
>
> Best to keep it simple and facilitate to apply.
>
> To whom interested in have a TLD to explore it, it will be necessary
> to have at least around 500,000 USD to set up a real facility or to pay for
> someone run it for you, with enough quality, security, stability and
> resilience. So the amount paid to apply shall not be a barrier for anyone
> really interested in running a TLD.
>
> In my survey two years ago in this region( LATIN AMERICA) , all but
> one company I talked to, were interested in be advised about the next
> round.
>
> Underserved region is not by default poor. Several in those regions
> are rich enough, entrepreneur enough to face the challenge without any
> differential incentive.
>
> My 2 cents, from a underserved region – Brazil ( nowadays though we
> had 11 TLDs we do not have any local Registrar!)
>
>
>
>
>
> Vanda Scartezini
>
> Polo Consultores Associados
>
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
>
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
>
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
>
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
>
> Sorry for any typos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: registration-issues-wg <
> registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
> Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> Reply-To: <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 12:33
> To: 'CPWG' <cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent
> Procedures
>
>
>
> 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> 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 list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> > _______________________________________________
> > registration-issues-wg mailing list
> > registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > CPWG mailing list
> > CPWG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg
> mailing list registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c5ad1670/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list