Good evening : Allow me to offer a few initial comments on the review of the new gTLD PDP report currently in public consultation. In general, the PDP has accomplished an enormous amount of work, but the present result is a voluminous document that may well not elicit the amount of informed comment that it deserves. Even the Annex C of questions is 66 pages long! 1. Methodology: It should be understood by newcomers to the PDP that this document is NOT an agreed result of the PDP's meetings: It is a concatenation of the reports prepared by each of several Work Tracks (WT) within the PDP. Members were repeatedly informed that the objective of PDP meetings was to establish that the text corresponded to the results of each WT, nothing more.Consequently, Members who were not beholden to any particular WT were repeatedly told that their advice and comments would not be taken into account and that the appropriate form was to issue a public comment. As a result, PDP members who offered specific advice based on their knowledge and experience were repeatedly rebuffed. Several members of the PDP (including myself) think that their comments and advice should have been taken into account in the drafting of this report. Consequently, the Public Comment period is likely to be rather 'heavy'. 2. The economic and business context: in my view, from the users' perspective, there is a problem with the large numbers of new GTLDs from the last round which are underperforming. I do not have enough data to be more precise on this situation. I think that the PDP has gone too far down the road of assuming that there will be a market for even more (EN) gTLDs, apparently without data or justification. We all await with anticipation the CCT-RT Report. 3. The next Rounds: Assuming that ICANN goes ahead notwithstanding with future rounds, the definition of the categories becomes crucial. Additional categories are essential, such as IDNs per script, Geo-TLDs, underserved regions, Geographical Indications, not-for-profits, etc. The policy issues pertaining to each category will be quite distinct. The expertise required of the evaluators in each category will be different. I think that sequential rounds should be opened, one at a time, for each category. This would also allow all interested parties, including At Large, to have a significant window of opportunity to propose adjustments and redirections to each of the applicants. The current orientation towards a single 'opening' urbi et orbi, might overwhelm the resources of the interested parties, not to speak of the ICANN staff themselves. c.f. Discussion in Panamá about 'scaling' the ICANN's capacity. 4. Geo-Names and WT5: The preamble to this report establishes (at my insistence) that WT5 is not covered by this report. It would appear that WT5 can start from a clean sheet of paper, but this may not be quite the case because there are WT5 issues that have also been addressed by other WT in the PDP. These include: business models, restrictions on multiple applications, registrar policy and vertical integration, jurisdiction of incorporation, reserved names, and – more generally - the protection of all geographical names that are not already formally protected in applicable local laws. That is a large subject that I have already addressed elsewhere, so enough on this occasion! Except tp reacall the importance of Geographical Indications as a 5. Closed Generics: As a matter of language, and the permanent right of the public to use the generic words in their languages, I am skeptical about the current proposals. My position has been that an applicant could only apply for a closed generic in so far as it already held that string as an exclusive right (e.g. as a global Trade Mark). 6. Freedom of Speech: From At Large's point of view, the relevant freedom is that of the final users and Registrants. I fail to understand the discussion about the freedom of speech of the applicants. Their primary responsibility in this context is to protect the freedom of speech of their customers and users within the law. In the WT5 context, freedom of speech of the applicant has been advanced as a justification for the appropriation of geographical names. In the real world, that would amount to cyber collonialism and would no doubt be called out as such. 7. 'Predictability': Much has been made of the need for predictability of the application process from the point of view of the applicants. In practice this seems to be 'code' for restricting the opportunities for external parties (such the GAC, and even the ICANN Board itself) from intervening in particular applications. But unless the GNSO in general and this PDP in particular manifests far greater understanding and sensitivity to the rights, interests and responsibilities of third parties, the desired degree of predictability will be politically impossible. (As has clearly been the case in the 2012 round.) * * * These few observations, above, provide a flavour of the issues that will arise during the public consultation. There are some others. My comments at this stage are based on a thorough review of all the PDP WT reports. I have not yet had time to re-read the published version. I look forward to further discussion within the At Large communities. Regards Christopher Wilkinson

El 24 de julio de 2018 a las 7:35 Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió:

Thanks Olivier for the link.

I’ve had a quick look at the report, and concentrated on Annex C - the actual recommendations, etc.

My suggestion is that, at least on this call, identify the areas that we want to focus on - that are about the interests of users . Clearly each heading has lots of specifics on recommendations, options. But if we can at least identify the issues we want to focus on, it will narrow down our task, and may be even assign areas to different WG members?

This is my suggested list - with the heading as per the Annex. I am anticipating others will have different views of what areas we should concentrate on, but this largely reflects the areas ALAC has commented on before.

Holly

Annex C: Table of Recommendations, Options and Questions:

Suggested Areas for ALAC Comments

Continuing Subsequent Procedures (Cl 2.2.1ff)

· In general, does ALAC agree there should be no changes to existing policy calling for subsequent application rounds

· Should there be success metrics (see also

Applicant support – Cl 2.5.4.e – also asking about metrics – what does success look like? And Evaluation criteria

Different TLD Types (c. 2.2.4)

· Should the different categories in the 2012 Guidebook be retained (e.g., standard, community based)

Global Public Interest (Cl 2.3.2)

· Should there continue to be PICS – mandatory or voluntary?

Applicant Freedom of Expression (Cl 2.3.3)

· Do we want to say anything??

Universal Acceptance (Cl 2.3.4)

· Any further work need to be done by the Universal Acceptance Initiative for IDNs

Applicant Guidebook (2.4.1)

· Changes needed to make it more accessible/comprehensible?

Communications (Cl 242)

· Range of suggestions on education and outreach. (There is also some recommendations on outreach and awareness Under Application (Cl 2.5.1)

Variable Fees (Cl 2.5.1)

· Differing fees for different types of applications

Applicant Support (Cl 2.5.4)

· About applicant support including global outreach

· Should there be a dedicated round for developing countries?

Reserved Names (Cl 2.7.1)

· Asking about the use of two character strings at the top level

Registrant Protection (Cl 2.7.2) ??

· Different screening requirements for different types of applicants

Closed Generics(Cl 2.7.3)

· Closed generics with PICS

String Similarity (Cl 2.7.4)

· Prohibition on similar strings

· Community Priority Evaluations

Stability and Security

· Support SSAC recommendations

Community Applications (Cl 2.9.1)

· Evaluation needs to be more transparent and predictable and developed before evaluation

_______________________________________________ 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

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

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, 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

I agree with Holly's points, and the further clarifications. Promotion, including adequate advance notice, were clearly missing last time around. It has also been suggested in other threads that, once ICANN moves beyond rounds to continuous availability, this problem could become even more acute. So it should be given lots of consideration during this series of discussions. Marita On 8/8/2018 7:59 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

It's not just the Southern hemisphere

We were approached by companies and government agencies *after* the application window was closed.

The general awareness of new TLDs outside the "bubble" is a problem.

It's not just language, though I agree that it is an important factor.

-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com https://blacknight.blog / http://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 -------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow, R93 X265 ,Ireland Company No.: 370845

On 08/08/2018, 18:14, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Maureen Hilyard" <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of 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, 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

Thanks for all of this story Vanda. You know, the sad thing about this is that, in those days when Rod was CEO, I confronted him about this and he made it quite clear that this was a clear business decision. The ICANN roadshow went to the "markets" it thought would generate huge interest and concrete applications. I gather that times have changed now, but I would be interested to find out if the current ICANN CEO and the Board still see the new gTLD round as a set of "markets" to address, rather than basing the round on the public interest. Kindest regards, Olivier On 08/08/2018 19:13, Maureen Hilyard 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 <mailto: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, 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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>     > _______________________________________________     > registration-issues-wg mailing list     > registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>     _______________________________________________     CPWG mailing list     CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>     _______________________________________________     GTLD-WG mailing list     GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>

    Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

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

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<mailto: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<mailto: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, 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<mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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

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

Well, As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”. Thanks, Alexander From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures 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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> > Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> >; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g> &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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

I believe the biggest challenge in "underserved regions" is not cash on hand for some entrepreneur but market size. If there is currently low takeup of ccTLDs why do we believe there will be big takeup of some new gTLD? A part of me believes we shouldn't be focused on applicants from underserved areas but instead understanding the dynamics of the second level domain market in those places as that has to grow first. -----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:12 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures Importance: High Last round we also have some applicants theoretically based in this region, since who applied was a local person, but the organization was not. The focus was for this region, so I can understand this as a valid strategy: apply for a TLD for geographic region interest even if your organization is located elsewhere. So, just to the applicant be from an underserved region does not mean that the organization is from that region or after get it will have local service. In thesis, I am against incentives to avoid fake and unfair competition. Anyway, have an address shall not be the focus of any incentive. To really avoid unfair competition ( people set a temporary address in underserved region) you need to have too much bureaucracy which shall not be the case. Best to keep it simple and facilitate to apply. To whom interested in have a TLD to explore it, it will be necessary to have at least around 500,000 USD to set up a real facility or to pay for someone run it for you, with enough quality, security, stability and resilience. So the amount paid to apply shall not be a barrier for anyone really interested in running a TLD. In my survey two years ago in this region( LATIN AMERICA) , all but one company I talked to, were interested in be advised about the next round. Underserved region is not by default poor. Several in those regions are rich enough, entrepreneur enough to face the challenge without any differential incentive. My 2 cents, from a underserved region – Brazil ( nowadays though we had 11 TLDs we do not have any local Registrar!) Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 12:33 To: 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures Well, As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”. Thanks, Alexander From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures 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 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

I concur with everything said here! -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:38 AM Andrew Mack <AMack@amglobal.com> wrote:

Agree with both Vanda and JZ. Having sat on JAS and done work for CCTRT on this topic, I think the "biggest problem" is actually a basket of things, but agree its not cash on hand.

Market size is limited by awareness -- awareness of ICANN ecosystem, awareness of the new gTLD process/window and awareness of how to use a new gTLD. Promoting ICANN and new gTLDs generally is hard -- the audience is too broad. But our research showed that focusing on business model for potential applicants (especially for those who express some interest) may provide a big chance to advance. We interviewed dozens of different potential candidates for new gTLDs for our CCTRT work and many came back saying, in essence, "we didn't have a clear vision of how we were going to use a new gTLD to reach our customers or what success model would look like". As a result, they couldn't make the case to management.

Where the industry is newer/smaller/less developed, getting targeted info out to the community (and to associations that might represent multiple potential applicants) around how some of the successful new gTLDs have been structured and their thinking about business model would seem to be the best kind of direct support -- open to all kinds of applicants, building on past learnings. Support of any kind (technical, financial) is only meaningful if people truly have a good idea of how they'll make a go of a new gTLD.

Andrew Mack Principal C: +1 (202) 256-1077 O: +1 (202) 642-6429 Skype: Andrew.Mack

www.amglobal.com <http://www.amglobal.com/> | amack@amglobal.com

On 8/29/18, 8:21 AM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of Jonathan Zuck" < gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

I believe the biggest challenge in "underserved regions" is not cash on hand for some entrepreneur but market size. If there is currently low takeup of ccTLDs why do we believe there will be big takeup of some new gTLD? A part of me believes we shouldn't be focused on applicants from underserved areas but instead understanding the dynamics of the second level domain market in those places as that has to grow first.

-----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:12 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures Importance: High

Last round we also have some applicants theoretically based in this region, since who applied was a local person, but the organization was not. The focus was for this region, so I can understand this as a valid strategy: apply for a TLD for geographic region interest even if your organization is located elsewhere.

So, just to the applicant be from an underserved region does not mean that the organization is from that region or after get it will have local service.

In thesis, I am against incentives to avoid fake and unfair competition. Anyway, have an address shall not be the focus of any incentive.

To really avoid unfair competition ( people set a temporary address in underserved region) you need to have too much bureaucracy which shall not be the case.

Best to keep it simple and facilitate to apply.

To whom interested in have a TLD to explore it, it will be necessary to have at least around 500,000 USD to set up a real facility or to pay for someone run it for you, with enough quality, security, stability and resilience. So the amount paid to apply shall not be a barrier for anyone really interested in running a TLD.

In my survey two years ago in this region( LATIN AMERICA) , all but one company I talked to, were interested in be advised about the next round.

Underserved region is not by default poor. Several in those regions are rich enough, entrepreneur enough to face the challenge without any differential incentive.

My 2 cents, from a underserved region – Brazil ( nowadays though we had 11 TLDs we do not have any local Registrar!)

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004

01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253

Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464

Sorry for any typos.

From: registration-issues-wg < registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 12:33 To: 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

Well,

As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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 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 _______________________________________________ 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

+1 Jonathan. I do not believe that in our underserved region there is any real demand or capacity to even consider new gTLDs for themselves. But there is a definite need for them to learn more about their ccTLDs and the potential of second level domains. As well as understanding what is required for a successful business model. +1 to Andrew as well. On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

I believe the biggest challenge in "underserved regions" is not cash on hand for some entrepreneur but market size. If there is currently low takeup of ccTLDs why do we believe there will be big takeup of some new gTLD? A part of me believes we shouldn't be focused on applicants from underserved areas but instead understanding the dynamics of the second level domain market in those places as that has to grow first.

-----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> On Behalf Of Vanda Scartezini Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 3:12 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures Importance: High

Last round we also have some applicants theoretically based in this region, since who applied was a local person, but the organization was not. The focus was for this region, so I can understand this as a valid strategy: apply for a TLD for geographic region interest even if your organization is located elsewhere.

So, just to the applicant be from an underserved region does not mean that the organization is from that region or after get it will have local service.

In thesis, I am against incentives to avoid fake and unfair competition. Anyway, have an address shall not be the focus of any incentive.

To really avoid unfair competition ( people set a temporary address in underserved region) you need to have too much bureaucracy which shall not be the case.

Best to keep it simple and facilitate to apply.

To whom interested in have a TLD to explore it, it will be necessary to have at least around 500,000 USD to set up a real facility or to pay for someone run it for you, with enough quality, security, stability and resilience. So the amount paid to apply shall not be a barrier for anyone really interested in running a TLD.

In my survey two years ago in this region( LATIN AMERICA) , all but one company I talked to, were interested in be advised about the next round.

Underserved region is not by default poor. Several in those regions are rich enough, entrepreneur enough to face the challenge without any differential incentive.

My 2 cents, from a underserved region – Brazil ( nowadays though we had 11 TLDs we do not have any local Registrar!)

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004

01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil

Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253

Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464

Sorry for any typos.

From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Monday, August 27, 2018 at 12:33 To: 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

Well,

As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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 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

Dear Olivier, Well, for starters we could look at the desired STRING! Somebody please correct me, but it looks likely to me that an applicant from an underserved region would apply for a string with regional connotation: * A geo-name such as a region or city * A regional, cultural gTLD ; like .cat – for the Catalonian language community (Catalonia of course is one of the most well developed areas in Europe and NOT an “underserved region”; just meant as an example or the type of string!) * An indigenous name based gTLD * If a generic keyword: probably one in the local language! Like “.web” in their language – NOT in English! I would assume that the over-overwhelming majority of strings desired by applicants in need of support would follow such pattern. And of these strings the only ones interesting for people who want to game the system are cities! So we could simply say: If a city name is being applied for by an applicant who wants to be supported, then it must be a city in their region AND they have to apply with “geo-use intent” (which triggers the requirement of a letter of support by the city Government, which “gamers” likely will have difficulties to acquire or find too cumbersome). Gamers will likely apply for names like: * Any “premium three-letter”-based gTLD * Cities in industrialized countries (by using the “non-geo use” loophole; through which no letter of support needs to be obtained: something that we HAVE to stop at least for SIZEABLE cities – I need more support for that in WT5. Right now anybody could snag up “.shanghai” without letter of support, by claiming that “no geo-use” is intended, but the registrars will sell it to people in Shanghai anyways: not the registries fault, no problem: LOOPHOLE! Remember: Registries do not sell ANYTHING to end-users, that’s done by registrars. And registrars do not have to abide by the “non-geo use” intent claimed by the applicant. So my suggestion: If a city has more than X citizens: It would be treated like a capital city; MANDATORY letter of support! X could be anywhere between 250k to 1 Million people. Below that threshold cities are not economically interesting for gamers) * Generic English keyword based gTLDs Does this help? Thanks, Alexander From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2018 17:40 To: alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures Dear Alexander, how do you get around countering this type of gaming of the system? As several people have said from the experience of the current round, it's that the rich multinationals will find a way around restrictions, but local communities will find the restriction so hard to navigate that the restriction will eventually work against them. Short of a much more in depth and expensive due diligence process to find out who the real applicants are, I do not know how to check that. Kindest regards, Olivier On 21/08/2018 15:49, Alexander Schubert wrote: Well, As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”. Thanks, Alexander From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: CPWG <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures 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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> > Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> >; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g> &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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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

Hi, Well, it's rather categories. And we do restrict applications by category all the time (e.g. capital cities)! Btw we also restrict by CONTENT! Think about the "sensitive strings" issue. Plus: Nobody is forced to apply for ICANN applicant support. If you do not meet the criteria then you can still apply without support. So ICANN is NOT restricting applications (or which strings can be applied for) - it is restricting access to applicant support! In the end of the day otherwise you always face a dilemma: If a DONUTS-clone would really base their entire operations in an "underserved region" - and thus by ALL MEANS really qualify as a legit business operating in the region (without trickstery): would them applying for 325 English language based keyword gTLDs in ANY way form or shape "serve that region"? It's not about that the registry is local - that doesn't reduce the "being underserved" of the region at all. It's all about the STRINGS! The STRINGS have to serve the region - so it is LESS "underserved". Or do I completely misunderstand the rationale behind "support for applicants from underserved regions"? Thanks, Alexander -----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2018 18:59 To: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures Dear Alexander, thanks, that really helps. But does this proposal imply that ICANN should make a decision based on "content", taking the string itself as being content? Kindest regards, Olivier On 28/08/2018 17:17, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Dear Olivier,

Well, for starters we could look at the desired STRING! Somebody please correct me, but it looks likely to me that an applicant from an underserved region would apply for a string with regional connotation:

· A geo-name such as a region or city

· A regional, cultural gTLD ; like .cat – for the Catalonian language community (Catalonia of course is one of the most well developed areas in Europe and NOT an “underserved region”; just meant as an example or the type of string!)

· An indigenous name based gTLD

· If a generic keyword: probably one in the local language! Like “.web” in their language – NOT in English!

I would assume that the over-overwhelming majority of strings desired by applicants in need of support would follow such pattern. And of these strings the only ones interesting for people who want to game the system are cities! So we could simply say: If a city name is being applied for by an applicant who wants to be supported, then it must be a city in their region AND they have to apply with “geo-use intent” (which triggers the requirement of a letter of support by the city Government, which “gamers” likely will have difficulties to acquire or find too cumbersome).

Gamers will likely apply for names like:

· Any “premium three-letter”-based gTLD

· Cities in industrialized countries (by using the “non-geo use” loophole; through which no letter of support needs to be obtained: something that we HAVE to stop at least for SIZEABLE cities – I need more support for that in WT5. Right now anybody could snag up “.shanghai” without letter of support, by claiming that “no geo-use” is intended, but the registrars will sell it to people in Shanghai anyways: not the registries fault, no problem: LOOPHOLE! Remember: Registries do not sell ANYTHING to end-users, that’s done by registrars. And registrars do not have to abide by the “non-geo use” intent claimed by the applicant. So my suggestion: If a city has more than X citizens: It would be treated like a capital city; MANDATORY letter of support! X could be anywhere between 250k to 1 Million people. Below that threshold cities are not economically interesting for gamers)

· Generic English keyword based gTLDs

Does this help?

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] *Sent:* Dienstag, 28. August 2018 17:40 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

Dear Alexander,

how do you get around countering this type of gaming of the system? As several people have said from the experience of the current round, it's that the rich multinationals will find a way around restrictions, but local communities will find the restriction so hard to navigate that the restriction will eventually work against them. Short of a much more in depth and expensive due diligence process to find out who the real applicants are, I do not know how to check that. Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 21/08/2018 15:49, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Well,

As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of > cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

"........So ICANN is NOT restricting applications (or which strings can be applied for) - it is restricting access to applicant support!" Now that's a beaut! Once in a while I get a whole lesson I can teach from something said in these fora. Here we have it. A carefully calibrated expression opposing the concept of applicant support but a perfect takeoff for my lesson on tautology. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 11:32 AM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:

Hi,

Well, it's rather categories. And we do restrict applications by category all the time (e.g. capital cities)! Btw we also restrict by CONTENT! Think about the "sensitive strings" issue.

Plus: Nobody is forced to apply for ICANN applicant support. If you do not meet the criteria then you can still apply without support. So ICANN is NOT restricting applications (or which strings can be applied for) - it is restricting access to applicant support!

In the end of the day otherwise you always face a dilemma: If a DONUTS-clone would really base their entire operations in an "underserved region" - and thus by ALL MEANS really qualify as a legit business operating in the region (without trickstery): would them applying for 325 English language based keyword gTLDs in ANY way form or shape "serve that region"? It's not about that the registry is local - that doesn't reduce the "being underserved" of the region at all. It's all about the STRINGS! The STRINGS have to serve the region - so it is LESS "underserved". Or do I completely misunderstand the rationale behind "support for applicants from underserved regions"?

Thanks,

Alexander

-----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Sent: Dienstag, 28. August 2018 18:59 To: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

Dear Alexander,

thanks, that really helps. But does this proposal imply that ICANN should make a decision based on "content", taking the string itself as being content? Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 28/08/2018 17:17, Alexander Schubert wrote:

...

Dear Olivier,

Well, for starters we could look at the desired STRING! Somebody please correct me, but it looks likely to me that an applicant from an underserved region would apply for a string with regional connotation:

· A geo-name such as a region or city

· A regional, cultural gTLD ; like .cat – for the Catalonian language community (Catalonia of course is one of the most well developed areas in Europe and NOT an “underserved region”; just meant as an example or the type of string!)

· An indigenous name based gTLD

· If a generic keyword: probably one in the local language! Like “.web” in their language – NOT in English!

I would assume that the over-overwhelming majority of strings desired by applicants in need of support would follow such pattern. And of these strings the only ones interesting for people who want to game the system are cities! So we could simply say: If a city name is being applied for by an applicant who wants to be supported, then it must be a city in their region AND they have to apply with “geo-use intent” (which triggers the requirement of a letter of support by the city Government, which “gamers” likely will have difficulties to acquire or find too cumbersome).

Gamers will likely apply for names like:

· Any “premium three-letter”-based gTLD

· Cities in industrialized countries (by using the “non-geo use” loophole; through which no letter of support needs to be obtained: something that we HAVE to stop at least for SIZEABLE cities – I need more support for that in WT5. Right now anybody could snag up “.shanghai” without letter of support, by claiming that “no geo-use” is intended, but the registrars will sell it to people in Shanghai anyways: not the registries fault, no problem: LOOPHOLE! Remember: Registries do not sell ANYTHING to end-users, that’s done by registrars. And registrars do not have to abide by the “non-geo use” intent claimed by the applicant. So my suggestion: If a city has more than X citizens: It would be treated like a capital city; MANDATORY letter of support! X could be anywhere between 250k to 1 Million people. Below that threshold cities are not economically interesting for gamers)

· Generic English keyword based gTLDs

Does this help?

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] *Sent:* Dienstag, 28. August 2018 17:40 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

Dear Alexander,

how do you get around countering this type of gaming of the system? As several people have said from the experience of the current round, it's that the rich multinationals will find a way around restrictions, but local communities will find the restriction so hard to navigate that the restriction will eventually work against them. Short of a much more in depth and expensive due diligence process to find out who the real applicants are, I do not know how to check that. Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 21/08/2018 15:49, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Well,

As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:*Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of > cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ 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

But that has been another argument.. the purpose or use of the string..which is content. M On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Dear Alexander,

thanks, that really helps. But does this proposal imply that ICANN should make a decision based on "content", taking the string itself as being content? Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 28/08/2018 17:17, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Dear Olivier,

Well, for starters we could look at the desired STRING! Somebody please correct me, but it looks likely to me that an applicant from an underserved region would apply for a string with regional connotation:

· A geo-name such as a region or city

· A regional, cultural gTLD ; like .cat – for the Catalonian language community (Catalonia of course is one of the most well developed areas in Europe and NOT an “underserved region”; just meant as an example or the type of string!)

· An indigenous name based gTLD

· If a generic keyword: probably one in the local language! Like “.web” in their language – NOT in English!

I would assume that the over-overwhelming majority of strings desired by applicants in need of support would follow such pattern. And of these strings the only ones interesting for people who want to game the system are cities! So we could simply say: If a city name is being applied for by an applicant who wants to be supported, then it must be a city in their region AND they have to apply with “geo-use intent” (which triggers the requirement of a letter of support by the city Government, which “gamers” likely will have difficulties to acquire or find too cumbersome).

Gamers will likely apply for names like:

· Any “premium three-letter”-based gTLD

· Cities in industrialized countries (by using the “non-geo use” loophole; through which no letter of support needs to be obtained: something that we HAVE to stop at least for SIZEABLE cities – I need more support for that in WT5. Right now anybody could snag up “.shanghai” without letter of support, by claiming that “no geo-use” is intended, but the registrars will sell it to people in Shanghai anyways: not the registries fault, no problem: LOOPHOLE! Remember: Registries do not sell ANYTHING to end-users, that’s done by registrars. And registrars do not have to abide by the “non-geo use” intent claimed by the applicant. So my suggestion: If a city has more than X citizens: It would be treated like a capital city; MANDATORY letter of support! X could be anywhere between 250k to 1 Million people. Below that threshold cities are not economically interesting for gamers)

· Generic English keyword based gTLDs

Does this help?

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com <ocl@gih.com>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 28. August 2018 17:40 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; 'CPWG' <cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

Dear Alexander,

how do you get around countering this type of gaming of the system? As several people have said from the experience of the current round, it's that the rich multinationals will find a way around restrictions, but local communities will find the restriction so hard to navigate that the restriction will eventually work against them. Short of a much more in depth and expensive due diligence process to find out who the real applicants are, I do not know how to check that. Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 21/08/2018 15:49, Alexander Schubert wrote:

Well,

As I pointed out: you always find cheap office space in some small-city suburb of such “underserved area”, and cheap labor. So just a company registration, physical office and one or two employees: that costs less than US $5k per year. Easy to maintain 2 or 3 years – to fake “legitimacy”. Yes. If you are a billion dollar U.S. corporation and need office space in the prime business district of the capital and university degree top employees: that costs a LOT of money. But to fake a local operation – you do not need that. You rent a small “store” for US $50 per month and employ two part time secretaries – and voila: you have a local “operation”.

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Dienstag, 21. August 2018 15:33 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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 listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

Good evening: There is a major issue underlying this question. What is absolutely scary is the potential combination of the e.g. Donuts maxi-portfolio of TLDs with the tax haven incorporation strategy. NB: the clause in the current policy that Registries will respect the laws of the jurisdiction of incorporation! So, the 'underserved' Registry .ABCD could be owned in the USA and incorporated in GI. Thankyou very much. CW

El 21 de agosto de 2018 a las 16:09 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:

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 mailto: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 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 mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com > Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net >; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org mailto:cpwg@icann.org >; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu >; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto: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 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 mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of > cw@christopherwilkinson.eu mailto: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 mailto: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 mailto:CPWG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > registration-issues-wg mailing list > registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg 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 mailto:CPWG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG@icann.org mailto:CPWG@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg 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 mailto:CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

> >

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

>

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ 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 Maureen, Seemingly we are mixing things up. What do we talk about here? Seems this is in connection with the next gTLD round, right? So is it: * Applicant support? * Any kind of “promotion of the new gTLD program”? That would have to kick in AT THE VERY MINIMUM about 1.5 to 2 years BEFORE the application window closes! Having set up 7 applicant entities by now (2 successfully for the 2012 round, two attempted in the 2012 round but not finalized, and 3 for the 2020/2021 round) I know that it takes time. If you want community owned, funded, supported applicants – in a region which is “underserved” especially – it just takes A LOT OF TIME! “Promoting” the program 6 month ahead won’t yield to ANY results. Nobody sets up a multi-constituent-type applicant consisting of local constituents, collecting support from the local community and making themselves familiar with the new gTLD program in such a short time. Presumably we are talking about language, geo-name and similar applications, right? None of the both support types involves ICANN accreditations. Registries simply apply, then contract. The main issue with “applicant support” is: How to make sure to not invite fraudsters! Thanks, Alexander From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:25 PM To: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> > Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> >; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> >; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <https://maps.google.com/?q=Av.+Paulista+1159&entry=gmail&source=g> &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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

I realise I am the original culprit here (having darted this discussion by email) - but this (really good ) discussion needs to be on the SubPro work space. Otherwise, it will be lost Holly On 22 Aug 2018, at 9:21 am, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Alexander

Im probably am mixing things up at the moment, but thank you for your clarifications. You'd be the one to call on for advice for applications then.☺

But I agree, getting underserved regions even understanding why they should be interested in new gTLDs would take a long time, and I suggested some time ago, that as soon as the last round finished we should have set up a step-by-step ICANN learning module to educate anyone who wanted to know, just what is involved in the application process, then to how to set up a registry, as well as all the marketing hoop-la that goes with selling domains. 2-3 years is being very generous. Its a degree course!!

Ive just been adding comments to Justine's document on Applicant Support and repeated some of this stuff..

We need to get more comments on Justine's google doc so that the CPWG can start synthesising the inputs into some sort of statement from At-Large for each of the sections..

Maureen 🌻

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: Hi Maureen,

Seemingly we are mixing things up. What do we talk about here? Seems this is in connection with the next gTLD round, right? So is it:

· Applicant support?

· Any kind of “promotion of the new gTLD program”? That would have to kick in AT THE VERY MINIMUM about 1.5 to 2 years BEFORE the application window closes! Having set up 7 applicant entities by now (2 successfully for the 2012 round, two attempted in the 2012 round but not finalized, and 3 for the 2020/2021 round) I know that it takes time. If you want community owned, funded, supported applicants – in a region which is “underserved” especially – it just takes A LOT OF TIME! “Promoting” the program 6 month ahead won’t yield to ANY results. Nobody sets up a multi-constituent-type applicant consisting of local constituents, collecting support from the local community and making themselves familiar with the new gTLD program in such a short time. Presumably we are talking about language, geo-name and similar applications, right?

None of the both support types involves ICANN accreditations. Registries simply apply, then contract.

The main issue with “applicant support” is: How to make sure to not invite fraudsters!

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:25 PM To: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

Alexander, As for the applicant support, I can speak of the 2012 experience. I use to be on the JAS working group and remember very well people like you always telling us that the the system will be gamed. We were so frightened that we put very tough criteria that resulted in only 3 application for support while we had sufficient money to support up to 14. and among the 3 applicants, only one passed the criteria we put. And at the end, this single approved applicant was dropped by the community panel. The final result was Zero. Yes, we have to be careful, but not put impossible criteria, and not frighten people by the risk of gaming the system. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 22 août 2018 à 15:11, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@etges.com.br> a écrit :

Since here is an underserved region ( at least in some parts of the country, here sharing my experience: I have started the DNS WOMEN program to capacitate women to explain and sell domains in their own neighborhood and the understanding what means to have a domain in second level and for new gTLDs the ICANN’s manager in this country together with me and other colleagues from ICANN, we are talking about any opportunity we have to explain , teaching in universities, making presentation in the ICT sector and I have made a survey around this region talking with top guys in large organization, explaining the new gTLDs and I from hundreds of companies just one said they will not join if there will be another round. I have committed with all to call them as soon as I know there will be another round. Guess if in underserved regions if each ICANN member could spend some time sharing the idea in social media and in their own circle of relations we will have much more knowledge around. Fellowships members should do this as soon as they go back to their homes after meeting- spread the word about it.

Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.

From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 21:21 To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> Cc: <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>, CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures

I realise I am the original culprit here (having darted this discussion by email) - but this (really good ) discussion needs to be on the SubPro work space. Otherwise, it will be lost

Holly On 22 Aug 2018, at 9:21 am, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote:

...

Hi Alexander

Im probably am mixing things up at the moment, but thank you for your clarifications. You'd be the one to call on for advice for applications then.☺

But I agree, getting underserved regions even understanding why they should be interested in new gTLDs would take a long time, and I suggested some time ago, that as soon as the last round finished we should have set up a step-by-step ICANN learning module to educate anyone who wanted to know, just what is involved in the application process, then to how to set up a registry, as well as all the marketing hoop-la that goes with selling domains. 2-3 years is being very generous. Its a degree course!!

Ive just been adding comments to Justine's document on Applicant Support and repeated some of this stuff..

We need to get more comments on Justine's google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6A...> so that the CPWG can start synthesising the inputs into some sort of statement from At-Large for each of the sections..

Maureen 🌻

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:

...

Hi Maureen,

Seemingly we are mixing things up. What do we talk about here? Seems this is in connection with the next gTLD round, right? So is it: · Applicant support?

· Any kind of “promotion of the new gTLD program”? That would have to kick in AT THE VERY MINIMUM about 1.5 to 2 years BEFORE the application window closes! Having set up 7 applicant entities by now (2 successfully for the 2012 round, two attempted in the 2012 round but not finalized, and 3 for the 2020/2021 round) I know that it takes time. If you want community owned, funded, supported applicants – in a region which is “underserved” especially – it just takes A LOT OF TIME! “Promoting” the program 6 month ahead won’t yield to ANY results. Nobody sets up a multi-constituent-type applicant consisting of local constituents, collecting support from the local community and making themselves familiar with the new gTLD program in such a short time. Presumably we are talking about language, geo-name and similar applications, right?

None of the both support types involves ICANN accreditations. Registries simply apply, then contract.

The main issue with “applicant support” is: How to make sure to not invite fraudsters!

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Maureen Hilyard [mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:25 PM To: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent Procedures

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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of > cw@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> > _______________________________________________ > registration-issues-wg mailing list > registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg> > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg> > > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/ <https://community.icann.org/> > display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg> > > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann <https://community.icann/>. > org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > >

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

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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>

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

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

Good point. We need to design the scheme carefully. R On 21.08.2018, at 14:57, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto: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<mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>> Cc: Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>; Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>>; Vanda Scartezini <vanda.scartezini@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

Dear Holly, I agree with the focus that you are proposing. I have looked at the working Google DOC on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1agNhbXfXLPQIRTGjC-8U-l534SWpbnsiapi-... which contains all of the questions that are being asked, and there are plenty of them, perhaps part of the reason why nobody appears to have focussed on commenting on the page yet. But focussing on the area which you are proposing could allow us to share our comments on what matters for At-Large. Kindest regards, Olivier On 08/08/2018 07:09, Holly Raiche wrote:

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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

*Community Applications* Note 1) This note is to bring your attention that the following draft about Community Applications is added to Justine Google Doc to follow-up with the discussions that started there. Note 2) Since I was not part of any working tracks on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process, the draft I put together is based on my own reading and the different comments that were added. Hence do feel free to remove/change any of the drafted text. *Definition of the “Community”* The community definition found in the “Council of Europe Report” and “GAG communiqué”, still not adopted or endorsed. A possible problem for there is no agreement on one definition because the term “community” could be used to describe an officially registered community with clear mission and vision vs. the community of a group of dispersed people that have a common interest. Providing a discrete “community” definition that satisfies all kind of communities would not be easy. While providing a detailed acceptable description in the Application Guidebook (AGB) of all kinds of communities that could be referred to by the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE). That would be also helpful for an applicant to community-based string to find easy supporting documentation based on the Community description in the AGB. *Categorizing Community-Based applicants * Applicants could be categorized as an 1) existing registry operator, 2) A new registry operator that applies on behalf of the community and might be specialized into community-based strings, and 3) new registry start up. *Application Guidebook on CPE Guidelines * With the above categorization in mind, it would be good to write a clear and detailed AGB that provides starters with step by step procedures and samples of the required documentations. Furthermore, the more details included in the AGB the more transparent and predictable the outcomes of the application reviews would be. It was noticed the concerns on the lengthy CPE review time, revising the CPE review timeframe to have new estimate of the expected review time for the CPE would reduce the applicant comments. Having an anticipated CPE Q&A section in the AGB will be also very helpful. *Issues of community-based string * Providing an elaborate description of “Community” might contribute to the reduce the proposed community-based string contention. It is expected that the community based string application to comes with certain package/model to serve the community registrants. This package is expected to be reflected in the applications as contractual requirements in Specification 12 of the Registry Agreement. Issues of Freedom of expression and association will always be a discussion point whenever there is a community based string. *Community-based Application process* First time community-based registry applicants need to have a good understanding of process difference between community related strings and non-community strings applications. AGB would be one reference for this information but providing outreach prior to the opening of string applications would be helpful. To avoid the excessive time in CPE review applications, it would be good to have an ICANN staff checking the applications and make applicants in compliance with the all the requirements. Provide a clarifying text and/or examples on each requirement in the application form, does help applicants to provide a crisp and precise replies within the restrictive word count. *Application reviewers/panelists and the CPE review process* There is a need for a clear selection criteria to be in place for the appointment of the CPE reviewers, to make sure that they are well informed and there is no potential conflict of interest. Since CPE has extra examinations steps, there is a need to put a detailed list of tasks required throughout the review process, this provide a better estimation of the review cost. CPE scoring still raises many concerns. There is a need to study the listed CPE criteria in the AGB and propose change if needed. Then testing this modified scoring criteria to be able to generate consistency among the evaluators scoring. Which might lead to lower the threshold score for success.

Dear Christopher: Further to the Doodle poll, *At-Large* *Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call *is scheduled for *Wednesday, 25 July 2018 at 19:00 UTC.* * Please note: Working Group will be meeting at rotating times of 19:00 abd 13:00 UTC, Alternating weekly.*  For other times:  |*https://timeanddate.com/s/3k5d*| **  The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at:  *https://community.icann.org/x/yAJpBQ * * *AC Room: *https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/* *Kindest regards, Olivier * On 24/07/2018 19:35, mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW wrote:

...

on this week's forthcoming CPWG call…

When would that be?

C.

...

El 24 de julio de 2018 a las 2:59 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:

Dear colleagues,

on this week's forthcoming CPWG call, we'll have an item that will focus on the "Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)"

This is a very important track, which we risk missing out altogether due to our focus on the EPDP - hence the reason why we'll spend some time on this, specifically with a goal to respond to the Public Consultation on this topic. This can be found on: https://community.icann.org/x/dYdHBQ

Between now and the call, please take some time to acquaint yourself with the public consultation and read the Working Group's Initial Report which you'll find referenced on that WIKI page.

Also - would any participants in the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures please be so kind to identify themselves by email to Jonathan and me so we can call upon you to make suggestions as to what we should particularly look out for.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

 

...

_______________________________________________ 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

 

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html