Folks Not sure what happened, but I didn’t get Jonathan’s email below. (But then how many times have I said to others tha the Internet is a best endeavours network!) So my thoughts: Jonathan, I agree with this approach: Go through Appendix C for all of the issues raised by the report and identify the issues of concern for ALAC As a group - agree on the issues that ALAC should be addressing break up into smaller groups - each taking an issue(s) - maybe we can get this far at tomorrow’s (my time) meeting - THEN At the following week, each group develop a response to their issue(s) - with a draft statement for ALAC, and identify the relevant clauses in Appendix C Then we can all post our drafts - and see what others say Holly (my next email will be my choice of issues for ALAC) On 7 Aug 2018, at 2:25 am, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

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.

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?

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.?

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 ?

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?

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

<QUESTIONS FOR ALAC.pdf>_______________________________________________ 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

Hi Holly, Unlike the first time we went over this issue at length, we now have some hindsight to guide us. A few points to consider before we commit substantial volunteer time to a repeat of what we did for the last round. Consider what might be some lessons learned, IMO: The "PI" intended to connote a "public interest" component of "PIC" turned out to be misleading. The PICs that were mandatory were those designed to appease trademark and copyright interests, measures against so-called piracy and similar obsessions of the intellectual property constituency. PICs primarily intended to serve the global public interest (such as keeping category-name TLDs true to their category) were weakly designed, optional, and effectively unenforceable. It can be objectively measured: exactly how many registries were cited for violating PICs, especially the "optional" ones? What action was taken as a result? What process existed for the public to be aware of PICs and then be able to report violations? To my recollection the effectiveness of PICs from the last round was somewhere between negligible and nonexistent. Based on the miserable history of actual "public interest" PICs -- their creation, maintenance and enforcement -- I personally would challenge the need to spend effort designing new-round PICs that will also be weak, optional and unenforced. So either we need to demand that the PIC concept itself be made useful, or we ought not waste our time validating what is effectively a charade. Cheers, - Evan On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 21:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:

Folks

I’m not sure where or how to do this, but I am putting my hand up for the PICS issue. I”ll try to have something on the policy page workspace in the next couple of days.

Looking at the recommendations, generally, our issues:

*Mandaory* Should there still be mandatory PICS (and in response to the earlier section, all provisions on PICS should be in place BEFORE more applications (in rounds or otherwise) start. One of the issues was that PICS weren’t in the original Applilcant Guidebook so there was justifiable criticism of inserting them afterwards

What should they be/do we want to add to what is already there - and one of the questions - should the requirements be codified through a PDP to be mandatory

We raised the issue of enforceability - under Specification 11, they do form part of the agreement. But we raised the issue of who enforces - clearly ICANN compliance

*Voluntary* The Guidebook was also amended to allow for additional commitments to be made. Some of the questions being asked are whether they can be limited in scope or duration, whether it would be reflected in the Registry Agreement, ec

The GAC also said that some PICS raise the issue of ‘early warning’ - and to what extend should they be treated differently - or indeed, what should we say (again)

All initial comments welcome.

Holly

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56

Hi Olivier,

Whilst I agree with you that PICs should be meaningful & enforceable, I do not know what hard data you are basing your comments on their lack of usefulness.

You can't prove a negative. I ask for any -- ANY -- evidence that PICs from the last round served any major benefit to the public interest. To my awareness, there are none. I have come to think of PICs the way I think of airport security -- theatre, which projects an air of public service but fails totally in execution. If they are currently not useful then let's get them

improved!

ALAC did not invent the concept of PICs, they were imposed upon us as a protocol that IMO was deliberately flawed by design (and, as a result, beyond repair in its current form). I suggest that we aim higher, and focus on the objectives of asserting the public interest into the delegation of gTLDs. Since we clearly have no say on the implementation, our efforts are better spent concentrating on the goals and metrics Let's state clearly our vision for the protection of public interest in future gTLD delegation. That is ... were we to get what we are asking for, what would be the intended result?

But throwing the towel in when we're actually in a position to make a difference is not constructive in my opinion. If we already go to battle saying we're wasting our time, then we've already lost the battle.

I am not suggesting saying nothing. Rather, my purpose is that we stay at a high level and make very clear what we expect as the objectives of serving the public interest rather than dwelling on tactical recommendations that ICANN will once again surely ignore. We have finite (and stretched thin) human resources to tackle the issue, and I do not relish another round of hundreds of person-hours being wasted by a process that has already demonstrated the ability to impose "solutions" that do not match our needs. Let's focus on what needs to be done, acknowledging that we have zero influence on how ICANN would intend to do it. Since we already have a precedent that indicates how ICANN has reacted to At-Large advice in this realm before, we should know better <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it> than to do the same thing multiple times and expect different results. Cheers, - Evan

Evan, I disagree with you. I am in the car right now - not driving but my response will be longer than I want to type on my phone. So will reply later. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On August 10, 2018 10:44:15 AM EDT, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

Hi Olivier,

...

Whilst I agree with you that PICs should be meaningful & enforceable, I do not know what hard data you are basing your comments on their lack of usefulness.

You can't prove a negative. I ask for any -- ANY -- evidence that PICs from the last round served any major benefit to the public interest. To my awareness, there are none.

I have come to think of PICs the way I think of airport security -- theatre, which projects an air of public service but fails totally in execution.

If they are currently not useful then let's get them

...

improved!

ALAC did not invent the concept of PICs, they were imposed upon us as a protocol that IMO was deliberately flawed by design (and, as a result, beyond repair in its current form). I suggest that we aim higher, and focus on the objectives of asserting the public interest into the delegation of gTLDs. Since we clearly have no say on the implementation, our efforts are better spent concentrating on the goals and metrics

Let's state clearly our vision for the protection of public interest in future gTLD delegation. That is ... were we to get what we are asking for, what would be the intended result?

...

But throwing the towel in when we're actually in a position to make a difference is not constructive in my opinion. If we already go to battle saying we're wasting our time, then we've already lost the battle.

I am not suggesting saying nothing. Rather, my purpose is that we stay at a high level and make very clear what we expect as the objectives of serving the public interest rather than dwelling on tactical recommendations that ICANN will once again surely ignore. We have finite (and stretched thin) human resources to tackle the issue, and I do not relish another round of hundreds of person-hours being wasted by a process that has already demonstrated the ability to impose "solutions" that do not match our needs.

Let's focus on what needs to be done, acknowledging that we have zero influence on how ICANN would intend to do it. Since we already have a precedent that indicates how ICANN has reacted to At-Large advice in this realm before, we should know better <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it> than to do the same thing multiple times and expect different results.

Cheers,

- Evan

Since I'm one who spent a lot of hours on this topic in the last round, I feel compelled to say my 2 cents. First, there is no successful contradiction to the fact that PICs came about as a tactical response, a tack on. Second, there is no successful contradiction to the fact that notwithstanding the ICANN org noise that all PICS were contracted and thusly enforceable, showed no enthusiasm for enforcement. Three, the PICs themselves have a fundamental weakness as they tend to envelop business plans removed from the actual DNS. Speaking as a corporate strategist, it is a fickle thing to enforce and one I personally think ICANN would be challenged to enforce. Four, the anecdotal evidence is that a couple of outfits have implemented PICs that smoothly integrate into their business plans; think a few of the gTLDs that attracted GAC early warnings. I looked and could not find any contemporary information either from the Compliance side or from the outfits themselves that tell how things are working years on. On the balance of facts and the weight of evidence, most who filed PICS know its a 'feel-good-add-a-compliant-tick mark-get-out-of-jail-card' thing and that alone. In fact I believed my first use of the label 'not worth a bucket of warm spit' was to record my estimate of their value to the global public interest. Maybe we need to encourage PICs. And maybe the gTLD operators will, like those outfits cognizant of GAC early warnings, come up with some that converge seamlessly into their business plans. If there is a better mousetrap to sell then I'm in. However, given the facts and history, I would need to be persuaded this is worthy of another investment of volunteer time. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:45 AM Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:

Hi Olivier,

...

Whilst I agree with you that PICs should be meaningful & enforceable, I do not know what hard data you are basing your comments on their lack of usefulness.

You can't prove a negative. I ask for any -- ANY -- evidence that PICs from the last round served any major benefit to the public interest. To my awareness, there are none.

I have come to think of PICs the way I think of airport security -- theatre, which projects an air of public service but fails totally in execution.

If they are currently not useful then let's get them

...

improved!

ALAC did not invent the concept of PICs, they were imposed upon us as a protocol that IMO was deliberately flawed by design (and, as a result, beyond repair in its current form). I suggest that we aim higher, and focus on the objectives of asserting the public interest into the delegation of gTLDs. Since we clearly have no say on the implementation, our efforts are better spent concentrating on the goals and metrics

Let's state clearly our vision for the protection of public interest in future gTLD delegation. That is ... were we to get what we are asking for, what would be the intended result?

...

But throwing the towel in when we're actually in a position to make a difference is not constructive in my opinion. If we already go to battle saying we're wasting our time, then we've already lost the battle.

I am not suggesting saying nothing. Rather, my purpose is that we stay at a high level and make very clear what we expect as the objectives of serving the public interest rather than dwelling on tactical recommendations that ICANN will once again surely ignore. We have finite (and stretched thin) human resources to tackle the issue, and I do not relish another round of hundreds of person-hours being wasted by a process that has already demonstrated the ability to impose "solutions" that do not match our needs.

Let's focus on what needs to be done, acknowledging that we have zero influence on how ICANN would intend to do it. Since we already have a precedent that indicates how ICANN has reacted to At-Large advice in this realm before, we should know better <https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it> than to do the same thing multiple times and expect different results.

Cheers,

- Evan

_______________________________________________ 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