Dear Jonathan, Dear Colleagues: To get the discussion moving on substance, I attach a few questions regarding the new TLD PDP, from the Public Interest and Users' points of view. I trust that this will be helpful: Questions for At Large participants regarding the new gTLD PDP document. 1. Roll out : The PDP includes the 2012 experience of a general worldwide roll out for all categories of new TLDs. Would you prefer the roll out to be divided up by category of new TLD and by geographical and linguistic factors, in the form of predictably scheduled 'windows' for relevant categories of applications? Which additional categories of TLD should be envisaged? 2. Fees and costs : The current fee to ICANN for an application for a new TLD is $185,000. Is this too much or too little ? Should the fees be graduated according to the resources of the applicant ? How should these fees be financed ? Own resources; Sponsors' resources; Venture Capital; ICANN discount etc.? 3. Competition and concentration : The 2012 round of applications, including the so-called vertical integration policy resulted in a significant degree of concentration in the DNS markets, including a few Registry Service Providers for the 'back-end' of many Registries, and some Registrars that were allowed to apply for and accumulate large portfolios of new Registries. If this policy is allowed to continue, what would the effects be in the global context ? 4. Public Interest Commitments (PICs): The PDP envisages both voluntary and mandatory PICs. How should the Registries' obligations be monitored and controlled? Should PICs be contractually enforceable? 5. Jurisdiction: Is the jurisdiction of incorporation of a Registry a significant consideration? For example, in the case of a geographical name? Or incorporation in a tax-haven? What recourse would users and regulators have in such circumstances? CW, 6 August 2018
El 4 de agosto de 2018 a las 21:29 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió:
Folks, I confess that I'm concerned we've gotten a month into the comment period and have only focused on process and the format of a spreadsheet. I'll try to do better next time. We REALLY need to decide which questions we think ALAC is uniquely positioned to answer and what that answer should be. We've got a spreadsheet. If you're having trouble with it, don't let the week slip by. Here's the Annex. Read through it, highlight stuff you think is important for the ALAC comment and scribble what that answer might be, scan it in and send it to me. Put it all in email. Send smoke signals. I don't care. We need to finalize this list of which questions to answer on our next call so it is my intention to only talk about the questions on which there is some disagreement among commenters and try and resolve those disagreements. We will then divide it up for drafting purposes the normal way. Come prepared to advocate for a particular question or set of questions you think the ALAC should be answering during this public comment period. Your opinion after Wednesday will carry a great deal LESS weight. Comment in ANY way you like and I'll try to reconcile them for the call. Thank you! Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [INFLogo2]
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@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