[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017

Mon Jan 1 20:19:00 UTC 2018

Dear All,
First of all Happy new years to all .

While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however,
this should be further explored and discussed
.
Regards
Kavouss

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

>
> Vanda,
>
> I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for
> clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit
> operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested)
> or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ?
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
> Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini <
> vanda at scartezini.org> escreveu:
>
> Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend
> to be not for profit
>
> Vanda Scartezini
> Sent from my iPhone
> Sorry for typos
>
> On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer at dotzon.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> BG,
> Katrin
>
>
> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
> Akazienstrasse 28
> 10823 Berlin
> Deutschland - Germany
> Tel: +49 30 49802722 <+49%2030%2049802722>
> Fax: +49 30 49802727 <+49%2030%2049802727>
> Mobile: +49 173 2019240 <+49%20173%202019240>
> ohlmer at dotzon.consulting
> www.dotzon.consulting
>
> DOTZON GmbH
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598
> Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
>
> *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Maxim Alzoba
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05
> *An:* lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
> *Cc:*
> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
>
> Dear Cristopher,
>
> I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs.
>
> Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does
> not work in cases. where  municipal entity decides to run tender, where the
> highest bidder is allowed
> to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same
> (except for taxation) for commercial entities.
>
> And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and
> usually heads of cities are elected),
>  they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying
> for the job.
>
> In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant -
> they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow
> all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which
> usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not
> do).
>
> As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they
> are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens
> of other areas do not need it)
> , and there is no need to make it worse).
>
> If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form
> was used before it
> loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to
> have two different approaches to the evaluation.
>
>  Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS
> protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for
> engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs,
> legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or
> the procurement of all/some of  those services from the backend providers
> (RSPs).
>
> My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test
> then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was
> useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future
> of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones).
>
> In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of
> ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think
> that it will help in the next one.
>
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Special projects manager,
> International Relations Department,
> FAITID
>
> m. +7 916 6761580 <+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp)
> skype oldfrogger
>
> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:
>
> Dear Emily:
>
> 1.           Re: Potential TLD types/categories
>
> It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I
> consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public
> interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have
> Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based.
>
> Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent
> economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’
> proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.
>
> 2.           Framework of Predictability:       I recall that during the
> previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of
> understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were
> engaging at local, national and international level.  For applicants to
> reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research
>  before applying.
>
> In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading.
> We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that
> anything else is a ‘carve-out’.
> On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of
> their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories.
>
> Regards
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group
> members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note
> serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments.
>
> On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding
> potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff
> zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0). Your input is encouraged on the following
> questions:
>
>
>    - Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified
>    types? If so, what are the *pros/cons *for carving out specific
>    mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types?
>    - If there are *critical exceptions* needed for any of the proposed
>    types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility
>    criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).
>
>
> The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-
> Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz), which is intended
> to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while
> ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input
> is requested on the following:
>
>    - What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test
>    how it would work in practice?
>
>
> For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to
> help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share
> your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call
> on 8 January 2018.
>
> Kind regards,
> Emily
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11
> *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent
> Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> Please find below notes and action items from the call today.  These
> high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate
> through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat
> transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat
> transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.
> org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_SQxyB&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=JEW8DnUXx2bEgewpLq4ebIZVMtuhZshCB5JwVdtHj4Y&s=pE0ABBF34dzGWetkfjMphb2NWNS_azPVgS-tWeASZUY&e=>
> .
>
> Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the
> chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.
>
> Slides are attached for reference.
>
> Kind regards,
> Emily
>
>
>
> *ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.*
>
> 1. SOI Updates
> - no updates
> 2. Work Track Updates
> - Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems,
> communications, and application queuing
> - Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual
> Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these
> topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will
> focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads.
> - Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00
> UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections.
> - Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00
> UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a
> focus on applicant financial models.
> - Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in
> which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next
> meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading
> on the TOR document.
> - Some GAC members were surprised by the response to
> the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC
> may provide a response on this issue.
> - Request to return to issue of participation model
> contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call.
> - Additional work will need to be done to come to
> agreement on the Terms of Reference.
> - There is a single Chartering Organization in
> the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into
> place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5.
> Chat excerpt:
> *kavouss Arasteh: *I do not agree with your conclusions
> *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue of Georaphic name isc much
> beyound the leadership of GNSO
> *kavouss Arasteh: *The issue is disagreement on whether PDP
> is relevant here
> *kavouss Arasteh: *There seems to be that our concerns are not heard
> *Greg Shatan: *This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a
> fundamental fact.  The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin
> d’etre for the GNSO.
> *kavouss Arasteh: *It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue
> *Greg Shatan: *That is certainly your opinion, and
> thank you for your personal views.
> *kavouss Arasteh: *I am speaking from my own side here
> *Robin Gross: *We need to follow the rules, not break
> them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them.
> *kavouss Arasteh: *WHAT Rules Dear Mdam
> *kavouss Arasteh: *MADAM'
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *in any case GEO TLDs had to
> obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/
> federal governmental body
> *Greg Shatan: *Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking
> for that. Only a single member of a group.
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *or letter of non objection from
> the same governmental body
> *kavouss Arasteh: *It is not surprising that you want the
> domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names
> *Steve Chan: *As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating
> Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working
> Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.
> org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=FN3L848cy2TmbBFv_xNVZIBUc--golVeGZZ7sSUJNxg&s=aqeivPdCVM1wsLkCttYXF2a-EUgTAXgXApliix4nTdU&e=>
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Geographic names are not the property of
> any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries
> *Greg Shatan: *Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how
> that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise.
> *Martin Sutton: *@ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for
> addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved.
>  All concerns and views are taken into consideration.
> Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other
> advisory groups will have further opportunities to
> comment on any output from WT5.
> *Greg Shatan: *Kavouss, your personal views on that matter
> have been amply stated and heard.
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject
> - The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in
> recognition of the importance of this issue in different
> parts of the community
> 3. Overarching Issue: Application Types
> - Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard
> application, community-based application, geographic names,
>  specification 13 (.Brand)
> Chat excerpt:
> *Kurt Pritz: *I think we might distinquish between  the
> policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories:
> Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via
> independent discussion afterward:
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *Can we spell out NGPC please for
> some that weren't around in 2012
> *Steve Chan: *NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks
> Donna for the reminder.
> *Heather Forrest: *I agree that it is sensible to make the
> distinction that Kurt has raised between community
> policy-based and independent agreement
> *kavouss Arasteh: *There is no clear description on community
> *kavouss Arasteh: *If there is what is that?
> *kavouss Arasteh: *There is nalso no clear idea on how
> communities requirements to be compared with each other
> *Kurt Pritz: *My point earlier was that there is consensus
> policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus
> policy on closed generics and brands so the latter  "
> categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be
> considered a status quo consensus policy
> - Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed
> Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and
> WT5 is considering Geographic Names
> - On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the
> slides, but additional sections of the AGB also
> address geographic names, and these will also fall within
> the scope of WT5 discussions.
> Chat excerpt:
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i
> *Jim Prendergast: *While we did have some lenghty disucssions
> on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy
> oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is.
> *Robin Gross: *I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community.
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Those issues were written some 10 years
> ago and situation has changed drastically
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *AGB might change as result f some PDP work
> *Marc Palau: *What about family names? that's not an strict community
> *Marc Palau: *like .kim
> *Steve Chan: *@Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to
> set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012
> round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a
> result of the work of this PDP.
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *it might depend on wealth of the family
> *Greg Shatan: *@Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists....
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to
> raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so?
> *avri doria: *Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB
> against crimminal behaviors and activities?
> *kavouss Arasteh: *We need to revisit the definition of
> community and revist various categories of communioties as
> they are not having the same conditions
> *Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): *I think GAC advise might play
> it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities
> *kavouss Arasteh: *As soon as we raise a legitimate
> question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without
> giving a convincing argument
> - Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say
> confidently is that however we define community, it will
> need to be in support of the public interest.
> - There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities.
> - If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in
> this PDP, the status quo remains.
> - Review of attributes for current application types.
> - Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the
> approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures,
>  would there be a problem?
> - We may not need new categories, but there may
> need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant
> sections of the guidebook
> - .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example,
>  so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on
> Closed Generics are still underway.
> Chat excerpt:
> *Kurt Pritz: *If we change nothing in the Guidebook,
> there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed
> generics - there is no consensus policies on these
> *Greg Shatan: *@Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB
> result in changes in implementation?
> *Greg Shatan: *We can add those to consensus policy, but the
> lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation.
> - . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would
> need to work that into future application processes
> Chat excerpt:
> *Kurt Pritz: *@ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail
> silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the
> round in the same way?
> *Kurt Pritz: *I agree with Martin - the next round must
> encourage innovation by developing a flexible
> approach to accommodating new models
> *Kurt Pritz: *I think categorization is rigid and
> exclusionary (is that a word)
> *Martin Sutton: *Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be
> stifled through categorisation where it is not needed
> *Christopher Wilkinson: *@AGB It is already clear that the
> definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making
> policies will have to evolve
> - It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the
> 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types
> that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the
> system, but it is difficult to predict this now.
> - We should also include generic as a category. It is
> intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the
> application process closed that had an impact, and
> additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice.
>  There was no harm done by not having additional categories.
> - The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive
> and reduced innovation
> - If we create too many rules or parameters around
> categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that.
> -Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing)
>  - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications
> through specifications to the base agreement rather than
> creating categories, since these categories may have
> overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler
> approach. Are there any issues with this approach?
> Chat excerpt:
> *Robin Gross: *4 seems to lump two different groups together.
>   Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words
> that others may be "sensitive" to hearing.
> *Steve Chan: *@Robin, I believe that lumping together carries
> from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this
> WG from decoupling the two types.
> *Robin Gross: *Thanks, Steve.  I think we wouldn't want to
> lump them together.
> *Kurt Pritz: *With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s
> mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for
> change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a
> policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in
> the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it
> is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded
> that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them
> for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy
> - Agree that there may be different applications that
> warrant different provisions that might not upset the
> existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for
> applications where it is appropriate.
> Chat excerpt:
> *kavouss Arasteh: *I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names
> *kavouss Arasteh: *Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed?
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Kavouss, it would be great if
> you could give the process a chance.
> *Annebeth Lange,WT5: *The problem, Kavouss, as I see it,
>  is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is
> responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "
> true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can
> achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we
> should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved.
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active
> attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly
> appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to
> the request to participate.
> *Annebeth Lange,WT5: **Donna, I agree. However, even if that
> is what is the intention, still many do not feel that
> it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is
> still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out
> there, unfortunately.
> *Donna Austin, Neustar: *@Annebeth, appreciate your
> thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths.
> - One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential
> types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with
> geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different
> policies for each type, the administration will be
> significant. It will be harder to move through the
> process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for
> contractual compliance. Should the group consider the
> value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the
> potential impact will be.
> - The hope is that the full group conversation will
> provide additional input to the WTs that are considering
> some of the questions around categorization
> - Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13)
> - Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16)
> - Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17)
> - Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it
> is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the
> identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/
> cons for specific proposed types and identify critical
> exceptions for specific proposed types
> - More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to
> prposed use cases to test the predictability framework.
> . AOB
> - none
>
>
> *Emily Barabas *| Senior Policy Specialist
> *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> Email: emily.barabas at icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
> <+31%206%2084507976>
>
> <Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________
> ________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180101/93cab9f2/attachment-0001.html>