I meant a legitimate operation as in formally registered (with ICANN) registry/registrar. In our (Pacific) region apart from cctld managers I dont know of any other registries/ registrars that have been set up. The application is pretty comprehensive, it must ask for some verification of formal registration. Although I guess there are shoddy registries around as has been revealed already from the last round. But does ICANN carry out due diligence on new applicants (or those that are not so well known) and if they have carried out full consultation with their communities, etc, etc in order to protect these communities? Or is this not their job? On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 4:09 am Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Maureen,
what is a "legitimate operation" for you? Online marketing is legitimate for some whilst others call it spam. Investing into a domain portfolio is legitimate for some whilst for others it is a heresy. Speaking out against a government or a rogue company is considered legitimate by some whilst for others it has to be stamped down.
Oh -- and ICANN does not do content regulation.
So how are we going to be able to articulate this? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 21/08/2018 14:33, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
So perhaps some criteria that clarifies a legitimate operation in an "underserved region" might be needed?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi,
Please have an eye on "potential abuse". While aiding "underserved areas" in and of itself is a noble course - please always factor in that this might get abused by tricksters.
In the case of locally owned and operated geo-applicants for local geo-names: that's a good idea. But:
There is precedence that "portfolio applicants" are utilizing offshore legal entities as applicant vehicles. So we can't simply offer "incentives" (e.g. reduced application fees; or applicant support) to entities based in certain jurisdictions per se.
We had limited "abuse" in the 2012 round - because back then virtually nobody outside the inner ICANN circles was aware about the opportunity - and nobody imagined the fortunes that could be made (and in many cases WHERE made). This will radically change in 3 years when the 2nd round launches. People will examine the fringe cases in the 2012 round - and create clever schemes to "make money fast".
So the question: How exactly do we make sure that an application is a genuine "underserved area" operation? Just because they have a legal entity registered there, and rent a cheap shared office space and have two employees (for $US 150 each per month) sitting there staring holes into the wall?
Thanks,
Alexander
-----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 02:34 To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>; Vanda Scartezini < vanda.scartezini@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures
I agree Roberto about the differences in "underserved" areas. Because they are on the outside edge of the circle of developed and even developing countries, there are specific reasons for their "underserved-ness" which makes them different from each other..
When it comes to the next round, I agree that each underserved region should really come up with a business plan of its own in relation to how it can make pertinent use of any new gTLDs.
I look at my own region and we need to put a lot more effort into our ISOC chapter and our Pacific ALSes to help them understand what we are talking about when we mention new gTLDs and other internet governance issues that they need to know about if our region is to make more meaningful and productive use of the Internet.
So little time and so much to do...
M
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
Maureen and Vanda, I think that we all have ideas about how to address some issues that are related to the fact that there are some underserved (so far) geopolitical regions. As a matter of fact, if we do a thorough analysis the “underserved” areas are not only geopolitical, but also of different kind. The question is whether the next round does have as objective to address in priority these areas, or whether is only based on maximisation of the profit. I remember a similar discussion 20+ years ago, when I was working at ETSI, about the coverage of the GMS in Africa. The answer I got back then is that “there is no business case in Africa”. Seen in 2018, this position is ridiculous, but aren’t we reproducing the same cultural pattern today with TLDs? Cheers, Roberto
On 08.08.2018, at 19:13, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE PROMOTION IN SOUTH HEMISPHERE
And focus on making a splash in the Pacific region as well..
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Vanda Scartezini < vanda.scartezini@gmail.com
wrote:
Some comments on Christopher points
a) Community Priority Evaluations what was relevant during 2012 was the fact that all the effort asked for community to prove support ( ltos of money to do this around the world ) was ignored during the analysis period and several community ( I have promoted few) faced auction though their competitors had no prove of community interest. Then, if we will impose some demands to community we need to make sure those items will be considered and none without similar qualifications will be compete with them.
b)metrics Metrics for end users are security, respect to privacy and " continuity". If organization has no capacity to support initial investment so it will fail in a couple years and all registrant had done to promote the new domain will be waste of money.
I have been promoting here 2012 round. But it was this, myself talking with several organizations to enter. We had a reasonable success but the reality was there was NO PROMOTION of 2012 round in the South Hemisphere. Nothing in digital news in local languages. ICANN came one day to Sao Paulo Brazil and I asked people to join - we got 50 attendees . We had 8 ( from 11 applied in Brazil) that attended this meeting . Nothing else was done in South America. When I have done a survey in 2015 talking with big companies around South America I found just 1 that said they have no intention to apply if there was another round, all others responded YES, they had interest, please alert us, if there will be another round. So - the point here is just one: MAKE HUGE PROMOTION IN SOUTH HEMISPHERE
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g>, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.
On 8/8/18, 07:49, "GTLD-WG on behalf of wilkinson christopher" < gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good afternoon:
I generally concur with Holly's priorities in addition to my questions regarding Competition and Jurisdiction.
Regards
CW
El 8 de agosto de 2018 a las 7:09 Holly Raiche <
h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:
Folks
Having gone through the Report and Appendix C, the issues that ALAC
has been concerned with before and - I am suggesting - should concentrate on in its response include:
Community Priority Evaluations These applicants had priority, but the definition was narrow and few
applications made it through on this. The definition needs to be revisited, and the evaluation more transparent and predictable- and finalised BEFORE evaluation
Metrics Unde the general heading, the question is asked whether there should
be success metrics. We said - and I believe should continue to say - have metrics as to what success looks like from an ALAC perspective.
PICS Under global public interest, the question is asked whether there
should continue to be PICS. They are there because we argued for them - and still should
Applications from outside the US/Europe We expressed concern that most of the applications came from the US
and, to a lesser extent, Europe. We said this came down to a number of factors, including
Length and complexity of Applicant Guidebook - it should be more
accessible, comprehensible, in different languages
Need for applicant support - maybe a dedicated round for developing
countries
Possibility of variable fees IDNs The report mentions need for further work to be done on Universal
Acceptance
Happy to discuss
Holly
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html