- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 15, 2019

Aug. 15, 2019

Nadira, One of the problems we face is that we continually use the term "Internet Users" or "Internet End-Users". I am guilty of it myself. But that is NOT the term used in the ICANN Bylaws to describe our focus audience. The Bylaws talk about "Individual Internet users". The word "Individual" is key, because it says our focus is on Internet Users (pretty much everyone who touches an Internet connected device) who are "Individuals" - those who are using the Internet purely on their own "individual" behalf. It excludes those who are using the Internet on behalf of an employers, or as part of running a business. Does this help? Regards, Alan At 07/08/2019 04:31 AM, Nadira Alaraj wrote: I created a New thread to the discussion of a definition of end-users avoiding the distraction of the flow of the new gtlds application support thread. @Evan, thank you for sharing your perspective onthe end-user definition. >From my perspective still many words need to be defined as well such as "everyone" "provides services" because they are so broad and include many things. Better to wait for Jonathan to bring it up (I also copied Jonathan email here) so everyone's voice could be heard. Best wishes, Nadira ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:48 Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? To: Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj(a)gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com> > Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Iâ€™ve been working on that very thing and hope eventually to bring it up on the CPWG call. ðŸ˜‰ On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:49 Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:24, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj(a)gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com>> wrote: Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the At-large perspective? What has guided me well is simply this: "An Internet end-user is anyone who obtains or provides services, or otherwise communicates with others, using the Internet." Maybe it could be refined a bit but this works for most instances I can think of. - Evan I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed. Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus. If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III. Best wishes to all, Nadira _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

10 31

Important DOODLE - weekly CPWG call rotation
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to find the THREE most suitable ROTATING times for the weekly CPWG calls. https://doodle.com/poll/7wc6yt38bsrqbwwa NOTE – please provide your GENERAL availability, NOT just for next week. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella

1 0

Apology noted - Geo Names Survey
by Gisella Gruber Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Dear Christopher, Your apology has been noted! Kind regards, Gisella On 14/08/2019, 15:33, "registration-issues-wg on behalf of cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu" <registration-issues-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Please note my apologies. I am on the WT5 call (there are others of our number.) (How did we get into this clash-?) CW > On 12 Aug 2019, at 20:47, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: > _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y67t96s4 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYbkBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/332162804 / Meeting ID: 332-162-804 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space:https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

4 3

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y67t96s4 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYbkBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/332162804 / Meeting ID: 332-162-804 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space:https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 1

Request to mailing list GTLD-WG rejected
by gtld-wg-owner＠atlarge-lists.icann.org Aug. 14, 2019

Aug. 14, 2019

Your request to the GTLD-WG mailing list Posting of your message titled "Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] - ISO 4217" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: gtld-wg-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org

1 0

NEW DOODLE: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 12, 2019

Aug. 12, 2019

Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to schedule the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call for Wednesday, 14 August 2019. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/u3nt3aukmfusberd I have enabled time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close on Monday, 12 August 2019. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 1

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 11, 2019

Aug. 11, 2019

At 10/08/2019 04:00 PM, Nadira Alaraj wrote: Thanks to all who did engage in this email thread. The bylaws is clear of making At-large to be the voice of Individual non-registrant end-users. The Bylaws do not restrict us to non-registrants. However, I did experienced the challenges that At-large community are facing while encouraging retired active individual end-user to get engaged into At-large. Although initially they were curious when they took the online ICANN learn course for newcomers, but when they started browsing At-large and ICANN website they got lost and they were honest telling me that At-large is not of their interested and can't be of contributor in spite they are experience in corporate governance. There are two things at play here. 1) The At-Large web and wiki presence is daunting and needs real, focused work; 2) ICANN has a narrow focus and may well not be for everyone, no matter how good or technical they are, or how well we do (someday??) present ourselves. Following Evan's perspective and to solicit input from individual end-user is not easy. The challenge here is to rewriting the issues for survey design in a very simplified way to be understood by the layperson. I'm not sure. I think our challenge is to put things in the terms that a relatively small number of people, each of whom UNDERSTAND their individual user perspective, can contribute. A world like ours always needs champions to speak of behalf of their larger constituencies. But still there is a need to activate the role of the RALOs to channel the voice of Individual end-uses whether they're registrant or not through the intended planned design when At-large was founded. Because so far, I don't see this is happening. And that is the substance of Issue #2 of the At-Large Review - and work is just about to begin on that! Alan I also second Jonathan's thoughts of his last email. Wishing those observing Al-Adha a Happy Eid. Best wishes to all, Nadira On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 20:31 Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Olivier, While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some degree, I'm sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC to first principles: advocating for the interests of individual end users and, when there's a conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, we side with the non-registrants. That's really the whole ball of wax. How we determine those interests is a separate and important question for which we are searching for answers, the recent pole being a relevant experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating those first principles or we will never get our act together. We do, indeed, need to have the discipline to let things go that are already being said or are not directly relevant to the end user experience around the world. Just my thoughts. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> >; Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Dear Evan, I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying to achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You appear to be engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's legitimacy in anything it does - but this debate was past after the second At-Large review and it's too late to keep on going back to the stone age and remember the Wars of Religion. As for the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they can do better, I invite these people rather than laughing in their armchair, to come in and help us draft comments that have an impact, just like the incredibly talented people that have done so recently in this Working Group and that are spending a considerable amount of time contributing to the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy processes. When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other constituencies, there are many people who are active in more than one of these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a system that is a totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you allow that to happen. The world is not just black or white, left or right, hot or cold, nice or nasty. Let people be free to help where they can and not put them in a box/jail. Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than whipping ourselves into a frenzy. Kindest regards, Olivier On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants. That was my original point -- That there is a body already within ICANN representing the interests of individual registrants, in theory leaving ALAC as the body uniquely positioned to speak for non-registrant end-users. That the body charged with representing registrants is remiss in its duty should not be ALAC's problem, yet the resulting spillover also causes ALAC to be remiss in ITS duty. The logic should be easy because there are more than 4 billion Internet users and about 350 million domains in play total. So even assuming only three domains per registrant (and we know that is very far from reality), registrants are outnumbered by non-registrants by more than 30 to 1. Yet ALAC has a problem because of its high proportion of self-selectred Internet experts and insiders, most of whom either own a domain or have evaluated the need to have one. Our own makeup is heavily skewed against the non-registrant 95% because most in At-Large simply don't share their experience. The original theory was that the ALSs were going to be the way through which non-registrants would be able to participate in large numbers, but that intent has absolutely failed as most ALSs have turned out to be self-interested bodies such as ISOC and Internauta chapters or tech-focused NGOs. (Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such participation brings people with needed skill and passion, but without the perspective of the 95% of the world who will likely never own a domain. And without a credible plan for speaking on behalf of the non-registrant 95%, ALAC's own credibility is at risk (arguably it's already shot and needs a reboot). A few immediate remedies are possible while things are sorted out: The NomCom is directed to make its ALAC selections non-registrants as at least a token effort at balance. ALAC outreach needs to find people who are interested in end user issues who have no interest in buying domains. ALAC itself must commit to understand its issues through a non-registrant lens before choosing to comment on them. Longer term ALAC needs to engage in public surveys and research to guide its actions (and reactions) rather than its own elitist sense of what is right for end users. I daresay that the priorities of the billions wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly from ALAC's current guesses. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

3 3

Re: [CPWG] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 10, 2019

Aug. 10, 2019

I have largely stayed out of this discussion but it seems timely to intervene. On NCSG/NCUC and who can or should join: The NCSG Charter says that organizational members must have at least one domain name. Curiously it does not need to be a gTLD, but could be a ccTLD name. For individuals, having a domain name is one of the criteria, but there are other criteria which do not require having a domain name. Note that there are 3 criteria for individuals - the NCUC Bylaws do not make it clear if a prospective member must meet any one of the three or all three, but the NCSG Charter makes it very clear that any one of the three is sufficient. Moreover, the NCUC Bylaws prohibit an ALAC member joining NCUC under its criteria 2 (but there seems to no such restriction if you have a domain name! The NCUC has stated very clearly that they represent users, BUT have also said that their main focus is on privacy, freedom of speech and human rights in general. They are not limited to those topics but that IS their prime focus. So if these are areas that you believe you want to focus on in ICANN, then the NCSG/NCUC is definitely a prime home for you. The NCSG has a mandate that is far wider. Note that the NCUC is one constituency within NCSG (the other being NPOC). But you can be an NCSG member without belonging to either the NCUC or NPOC, and in fact that is the case for some At-Large people who are also NCSG members. On the definition of "end user": I addressed this in an earlier message but will repeat it here. I think the question is not relevant. Although we frequently talk abut whether an issue is of interest to end users, that is NOT the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws in respect to the ALAC and the At-Large Community. The Bylaws talk about "Individual Internet users". The word "Individual" is key, because it says our focus is on Internet Users (pretty much everyone who touches an Internet connected device) who are "Individuals" - those who are using the Internet purely on their own "individual" behalf. It excludes those who are using the Internet on behalf of an employers, or as part of running a business. On Individual Users VS Registrants: This is a debate that has been raised periodically and I thought we had settled it LONG ago. The vast majority of Individual Internet users have not and will never register a domain name. That being said, there are many Individual users who are domain name registrants, and where their needs as registrants do not conflict with the overall needs of non-registrant users, then we are here to represent them. Where their ARE conflicts, we support the needs of the majority of Individual users who are not registrants. A number of years ago, one of our At-Large members raised the issue of the rights of a registrant related to domain name expiration. Specifically are they given sufficient warning that their name(s) will expire and if they miss that date, can they still retain their domain name? At the time, registrar practices coupled with registrant practices often made it difficult to know when a name would expire and if the date passed, regaining control of the domain might well be impossible. It was relevant to us because: - it is the individual working alone who is often the registrant who looses a name at expiration - they do not have the corporate infrastructure to support them and e-mail addresses (used for registrar contact) tend to change more frequently. - Individual users, along with other users, depend on the web sites and resources they use - if they suddenly disappear, they are disadvantaged. - There was no downside for the majority of (non-registrant) Individual users if we had better expiration rules. As a result, the ALAC requested that the GNSO initiate a PDP on expiration rules. The GNSO agreed and there was a PDP which resulted in the Expiration Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) whichs provided enhanced publicly available information on expiration, predictability of fees, better notification when a name expires (even if your e-mail address changed!) and a guaranteed period after expiration in which to renew the name. The NCUC did participate, but through a single person who was not particularly knowledgeable in or involved with the issue (although a very interesting person in his own right!) We had good support from the Business Constituency and strong opposition from the registrars. I think that this is a excellent example of how we can relate to individual registrants without diluting our focus on Individual users. Alan

2 1

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Geo Names Scenarios
by mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW Aug. 10, 2019

Aug. 10, 2019

Good afternoon: Noted. Having looked at the 'final' version, I noticed some concessions to my comments, some of which have been recalled by John McCormac. Thankyou. However, I think we should have gone further. It still sounds rather corny to be referring hypothetically to existing gTLDs. Also, regarding .bluenile, ALAC must be consistent with existing TM law. If we accept that one local TM can block - or obtain - a global monopoly TM, then geo-names could become lost on a large scale. This whole issue merits a thorough discussion which has never taken place in At Large. Regards CW > El 5 de agosto de 2019 a las 22:15 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió: > > > Thanks John. I guess the point is that the applicant guidebook is being rewritten and the rules regarding permission, etc. are being revisited and we're just trying to build a consensus position her in the At-large, to the extent possible, so that we might comment. Our attempt to just "share views" in Morocco was a bit of a mess so we came up with the ideas of scenarios. I'll look at your specific comments and try to incorporate the ones that make sense. Thanks again! > Jonathan > > > On 8/5/19, 1:12 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of John McCormac" <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of jmcc(a)hosterstats.com> wrote: > > On 05/08/2019 20:07, Jonathan Zuck wrote: > > *Folks,* > > > > On Wednesday’s call, I hope to circulate the link to a survey, for > > everyone to spread to the community, regarding Geo Names scenarios. In > > an effort to get past the rhetoric and down to brass tacks, as we say, > > we’re looking at “outcomes” that we may or may not like. If we we are > > able to identify the outcomes we won’t and don’t want, we can set about > > crafting policy recommendations, if not for subproc than at least the > > board, that would most likely lead to those outcomes. Hope that makes > > sense. Remember the questions we will aks about each scenario are: > > > > 1. Do you believe this scenario to be likely, given the status quo? > > 2. How satisfied would you be with this scenario? > > > > It looks very much like an angels and pinheads situation with a lot of > hypotheticals. Some of the existing Geo NGTs are not doing well and it > might be better to examine the reasons for this before going off on a > tangent about hypothetical situations that may or may not affect a > second round of NGTs. > > On item 1: people in many areas outside the US consider their local > ccTLD to be the first choice TLD. Having millions of domains in a geo > database might be impressive but the Internet, and most people in those > regions will just ignore it and continue using their local ccTLD. (By > the way, .NAME is a real gTLD so it might better to use .EXAMPLE for > examples.) > > On item 2: Duplication. Capital city names are not necessarily unique. I > think that the guys from .BERLIN explained the process of having to get > permission from the city council/authorities before applying for the NGT. > > On item 3: Doesn't the Catholic Church have .CATHOLIC? > > On item 4: More rules and regulations for non-existent NGTs? Go look at > the structure of the .US ccTLD. It was intended to have a kind of > geographical and regulatory subdomains structure. The problem is that > TLDs tend towards simplicity. Brand names and business names matter in > most TLDs and trying to impose subdomains is not a good approach because > people generally ignore them. Worst of all, it creates confusion for the > NGT and opens the possibility of multiple pricing tiers. > > The assumptions in this hypothetical seem to be based on the > non-existence of ccTLDs as a direct competitor to Geo NGTs. > > Regards...jmcc > -- > ********************************************************** > John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc(a)hosterstats.com > MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ > 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics > Waterford * And Historical DNS Database. > Ireland * Over 516 Million Domains Tracked. > IE * Skype: hosterstats.com > ********************************************************** > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)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 > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)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 > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0