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

Wed Apr 24 23:32:13 UTC 2019

Dear all,

I believe what is being discussed is the Neustar proposal regarding “windows” in the next round.  In this regard, views of participants are relevant and a second public comment period on a limited number of important issues is highly likely given that (1) there was no Consensus Call prior to the issuance of the Initial Report and (2) There was no discussion by the full Working Group of all the issues raised in all the Work Tracks that resulted in the questions published with the Initial Report.  In fact, Leadership promised that the Initial Report would not be prejudicial to a discussion of the issues by the full WG. It was on that basis that WG members agreed to drop the PDP requirement of a Consensus Call prior to the issuance of an Initial Report.

Considering “organizational mandate”, I will venture the opinion (once again and as raised in the Barcelona meeting at the mike in a GNSO meeting) that the GNSO itself  is not charged with acting in  the “global public interest” except to the extent its PDP procedures provide for fair consideration of all points of view expressed in the PDP Working Group.  (In this regard, I believe Minority Statements play a very important role in that process.)   GNSO consists of stakeholders and constituencies representing various interests.  I personally believe the group that has been closest to supposedly providing input to the GNSO in relation to the “global public interest” is the ALAC, but the ALAC does not have a vote on GNSO Council (oddly).

The GAC’s realm is “public policy”.  So it seems to me that only the ICANN Board has responsibility for acting in the Global Public Interest when adopting policy, albeit within the limited scope of the ICANN Mission.  I believe the current ByLaws provide a reference to “global public interest” as follows in (ii) below:

[cid:image001.png at 01D4FABA.03CE74B0]

If someone can point me to some language in the PDP Manual that incorporates a requirement for GNSO itself to determine and act in the Global Public Interest, I would very much appreciate it.

Some definition work was previously done on this but this was prior to the most recent Accountability work. As I understand it, the old work resulted in the following draft, which was never formally adopted:

“ICANN defines the global public interest in relation to the Internet as ensuring the Internet becomes, and continues to be, stable, inclusive, and accessible across the globe so that all may enjoy the benefits of a single and open Internet. In addressing its public responsibility, ICANN must build trust in the Internet and its governance ecosystem.”
Anne

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike at rodenbaugh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 11:08 AM
To: lists at christopherwilkinson.eu
Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
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<mailto: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<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 6:01 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:ohlmer at dotzon.consulting>
www.dotzon.consulting<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>; alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>

_____________________________

<image001.png>

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto: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<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 5:21 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 3:57 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:silvia.vivanco at icann.org>>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 8:59 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>>; langdonorr at gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>>; Mohamed Bashir <mbashir at mbash.net<mailto:mbashir at mbash.net>>; Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>>; Sarah Kiden <skiden at gmail.com<mailto:skiden at gmail.com>>; Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>; Fatimata com> <fsylla at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

________________________________

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190424/1845fd40/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 87222 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190424/1845fd40/image001-0001.png>