[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan

Wed Apr 24 18:07:59 UTC 2019

Sorry, I now note this is on the broader list.  If this hasn't already been
discussed in the Initial Report, is it appropriate to open such a broad
discussion now?

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 11:06 AM Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
wrote:

> Yes it would be awesome to define ICANN's and the GAC's 'public interest'
> thoroughly and completely, at least with respect to the newTLD program.
> That has always been the white whale of ICANN policy development.  I
> believe there is a formal organization effort underway to define it for
> ICANN, or did that conclude?  (Staff, any update?)  The problem is that
> both Board and GAC have always, and always will, insist on the right and
> flexibility to define it as they see it, in any given case.  Just like they
> did (and are still doing re Amazon, Islam, Halal, GCC and probably others)
> at least a dozen times out of the 2012 round.
>
> WT5 would only have scope to discuss public interest as to geo names,
> which is only a small slice of the newTLD pie.  I don't know if there has
> been discussion of defining 'public interest' in the broader SubPro group,
> but it seems a much more appropriate forum than this subgroup.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
> lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
>
>> > (1) that ICANN received post-application GAC advice that varied from
>> the applicant guidebook…
>>
>>
>> Well, if we don’t want that to happen again, PDP and WT5 will have to
>> work harder to understand and implement the public interest.
>>
>> Form my point of view, there were significant lacunae in the 2012 AGB
>> regarding the public interest, which still have not been corrected by the
>> PDP.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> CW
>>
>>
>> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:10, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Katrin – namely two types of complaints:
>> (1) that ICANN received post-application GAC advice that varied from the
>> applicant guidebook and
>> (2) that government public policy interests were considered by some
>> governments to have been overlooked
>>
>> Anne
>>
>> *From:* Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH [mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.com
>> <ohlmer at dotzon.com>]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2019 6:01 AM
>> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN
>> 64 Kobe, Japan
>>
>> *[EXTERNAL]*
>> ------------------------------
>> Hi Anne,
>>
>> you mentioned in your email that a geo TLD priority will “address
>> complaints from the 2012 round.” Can you please point us to the facts which
>> complaints have been made at that time?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Katrin
>>
>>
>> DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow
>> Akazienstrasse 28
>> 10823 Berlin
>> Deutschland - Germany
>> Tel: +49 30 49802722
>> Fax: +49 30 49802727
>> Mobile: +49 173 2019240
>> 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 <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *Im Auftrag
>> von *Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 12. April 2019 20:26
>> *An:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>;
>> alexander at schubert.berlin
>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN
>> 64 Kobe, Japan
>>
>> Speaking personally (and not on behalf of the IPC or anyone else), I
>> think the Neustar proposal was just that – a proposal to be considered and
>> discussed by the full Working Group.  I don’t think there was any attempt
>> at all by Neustar to circumvent that process.
>>
>> In the interest of continuing that discussion (and taking into account
>> the letter from AFRALO/AfrICANN), I personally believe the full Working
>> Group should seriously consider fostering good will for the new gTLD
>> program generally by giving a priority application window (or windows)  to
>>
>>
>> 1. Brand applications
>> 2. *Bona fide* Community applications  - (easier to have a window than
>> to put these in a contention set with applications that are not community
>> based and rely solely on CPE)
>> 3. Geo applications by government entities (in partnership with private
>> entities if desired)  –  to be defined by Work Track 5 (with public
>> comment).
>> 4. IDNs and Applications from Underserved Regions (in partnership with
>> private entities if desired)
>>
>> *Advantages to this Approach:*
>>
>> 1. Permitting a brand application window first may calm a lot of the
>> discussion about country-by-country legislation to address consumer
>> protection in light of restraints imposed by the GDPR.  This is because
>> brands could elect to operate their own TLD and advise consumers that the
>> brand TLD is the only way to reach genuine product and/or links to sellers
>> of genuine product.  This concern is real as evidenced by the attached
>> letter from the US Dept of Commerce to ICANN.
>>
>> 2. Permitting a priority round for Community applications would mean that
>> unless the community criteria are somehow not met, the program will be
>> promoting free expression for new gTLD applicants (a goal of the program)
>> and serving a public good.  Here there will be an opportunity to
>> correct/address issues that arose in the last round.
>>
>> 3. Re a “geo” priority round for governments (and their private sector
>> partners if desired), this will also address complaints from the 2012 round.
>>
>> 4. IDNs and Underserved Region applications (and their private sector
>> partners if desired)  – again this gives ICANN the opportunity to express
>> concern for the Global Public Interest and accessibility for all Internet
>> users worldwide
>>
>> Anne
>>
>>
>> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>> Of Counsel
>> 520.629.4428 office
>> 520.879.4725 fax
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>> _____________________________
>> <image001.png>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>> lrrc.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Austin, Donna via
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg
>> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2019 10:41 AM
>> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN
>> 64 Kobe, Japan
>>
>> *[EXTERNAL]*
>> ------------------------------
>> I believe there was also a suggestion by Kathy Kleiman in Kobe that some
>> form of triage could be carried out on all applications with a view to
>> identifying contention sets and those could be set aside while the other
>> applications are processed in an arrangement similar to that posed in the
>> Neustar proposal. Kathy, I don’t want to misrepresent your idea, so please
>> correct me if I have this wrong.
>>
>> I think Kathy’s suggestion would mean that there would be a single
>> application window, but the concept of a phased process for evaluation may
>> still be workable, once contention sets are set aside.
>>
>> Donna
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert
>> *Sent:* Friday, April 12, 2019 5:21 AM
>> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN
>> 64 Kobe, Japan
>>
>> Dear Rubens,
>>
>> Absolutely:  We have defined a number of silos like “brand”, “geo”,
>> “generic”, etc. The applications in each silo are NOT “unique”; there will
>> be overlapping! We cannot stifle contention and prioritize geo or brand
>> applications over others.
>>
>> However:
>> The Neustar concept can still be utilized to a degree:
>>
>> Have brands and geos putting in their applications – and have those
>> evaluated! This alone will take a year. None of them however can ever be
>> allocated to ONE applicant before the “last group” (generic terms?) have
>> applied for THEIR strings: If there is no contention with the brands and
>> geos: GREAT! Then the already evaluated brand and geo TLDs can be
>> contracted ASAP and go online. Thus resources are freed up for the other
>> applicants. But contention has to be allowed to occur from ALL phases of
>> applications.
>>
>> In theory the brands and geos could even do the “provisional” contracting
>> and testing already: but they won’t go into the zone until the last
>> application window has closed and no contention has been found. So the day
>> the last window closes hundreds of cities can go live. Brands seem to NEVER
>> go “live” anyway (save .canon and a few others).
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alexander.berlin
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 09, 2019 3:57 PM
>> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN
>> 64 Kobe, Japan
>>
>>
>> Although this theme wasn't in WT4 or SGB, I'll explicitly take my
>> leadership hat off just in case.
>>
>> That said, I don't see the community being able to settle on a priority
>> round. Even though Geos and Brands, the ones that asked for this so far,
>> were perceived as the most interesting use cases of the 2012 round, and
>> while I believe it's likely it will be the case again in the next
>> procedure, there are so many potential clashes in the namespace that there
>> will be always someone disgruntled by such priority. One hypothetical would
>> be the association of apple farmers wanting .apple while Apple Computer
>> also wanted .apple*; the AFRALO-AFRICANN letter is yet another example of
>> this.
>>
>> We need to walk together in this case, and that means allowing every
>> possible applicant or possible objector to have their opportunity in the
>> upcoming procedure. While in product management it's typical to prioritise
>> use cases in lieu
>> of others, and a geo/brand round looks pretty much like an MVP (Minimum
>> Viable Product) to me, I don't see how we would bring everyone onboard on
>> this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rubens
>>
>>
>> * Yes, I know only Apple Computer applied in 2012 and they now own .apple
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Apr 2019, at 01:42, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> We received the following correspondence today and wanted to make sure
>> that the Working Group was made aware of the statement from AFRALO-AFRICANN.
>>
>> This is being provided for informational purposes and will be
>> incorporated into our discussions as applicable.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> *Jeff Neuman*
>> Senior Vice President
>>
>>
>> *Com Laude | Valideus*1751 Pinnacle Drive
>> Suite 600, McLean
>> VA 22102, USA
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079
>> D: +1.703.635.7514
>> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>> www.comlaude.com
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.comlaude.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=zk542U_bu1PbrDeuLXtwszC1lMsR5dtE55jd7WIYzLI&s=0j9C0or7Liumy8AAKVvuiIpR2oI7VPRrocDOpRYXwnw&e=>
>>
>> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the
>> sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This
>> message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential
>> information. If you have received this message in error, please send it
>> back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or
>> disclose the information contained in this message or in any
>> attachment.Com
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__attachment.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=zk542U_bu1PbrDeuLXtwszC1lMsR5dtE55jd7WIYzLI&s=nrWjhbqvRlcWttI8ofid9PTQ7eF6ZkfmkjfKtLuCl5E&e=>
>>  Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc.
>>
>> *From:* Silvia Vivanco <silvia.vivanco at icann.org>
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 8, 2019 8:59 PM
>> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; Jeff Neuman <
>> jeff.neuman at valideus.com>; langdonorr at gmail.com
>> *Cc:* ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org>; Mohamed Bashir <
>> mbashir at mbash.net>; Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>;
>> Sarah Kiden <skiden at gmail.com>; Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>;
>> Fatimata com> <fsylla at gmail.com>
>> *Subject:* AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan
>>
>> Dear co-chairs of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG,
>>
>> On behalf of AFRALO’s Chair Mohamed El Bashir, kindly find attached the
>> AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement “New gTLD Subsequent Procedure: Proposal of
>> Neustar regarding the upcoming round of New gTLDs" which was discussed and
>> approved at the ICANN 64 meeting in Kobe, Japan.
>>
>> Please be so kind to find attached the statement for your consideration.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Silvia Vivanco
>> Senior Manager, At Large Regional Affairs
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Tel: + 51-997510935
>>
>> <Joint AFRALO-AfrICANN meeting Kobe, March 2019-final.pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=zk542U_bu1PbrDeuLXtwszC1lMsR5dtE55jd7WIYzLI&s=Xo7FXR_tlzOgP5IguRyWTgvxspq34ADVe4IniK9-83s&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
>> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
>> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
>> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
>> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
>> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
>> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
>> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
>> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
>> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
>> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
>> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
>> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
>> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
>> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
>> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
>> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190424/d4804914/attachment-0001.html>