April 2015 - Gnso-newgtld-dg

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 30, 2015

April 30, 2015

Dear DG Members, Please find the agenda for the upcoming DG call below. Regarding agenda item two, I encourage you all to review the documents that were circulated on Wednesday, 22 April. Proposed Agenda New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Monday 27 April at 14:00 UTC 1. Roll Call / Updates to SOIs 2. Review Draft Exec Summary / Matrix / Charter 3. Next Steps 4. Confirm next meeting Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

7 11

- Update Draft Deliverables
by Steve Chan April 28, 2015

April 28, 2015

Dear DG Members, Staff and the Co-Chairs have worked on editing the DG¹s set of deliverables to incorporate suggestions from members as well as other updates. Please review the attached documents (also available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables) ahead of the DG¹s next call on 27 April 2015. * Executive Summary: Adjusted the language to acknowledge that the DG's set of deliverables is slightly different than originally conceived. * Issues/Recommendations Matrix: Integrated the Board Resolution: Annex A (yellow text) and GDD Staff input paper (green text) into the matrix to ensure that the thoughts are not lost, while being sure to differentiate between the issues raised by the DG. * Draft Charter: Made some requested changes based on the 13 April call, which includes: > * Noting that the work should consider past efforts and that existing > recommendations remain in place unless the GNSO changes them > * Strengthening language to allow for some level of flexibility in the charter > for a future PDP(s) WG > * Allow for the possibility that there may not be any subsequent procedures We look forward to discussion of these documents on list as well as during the next DG call. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

7 8

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 27 April 2015
by Terri Agnew April 27, 2015

April 27, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 27 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-27apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Dietmer Lenden - RySG Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - BRG Stuart Fuller - RrSG Christopher Niemi- no soi Phil Buckingham - Individual Jon Nevett - RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Jeff Neuman-RySG Liz Williams - RySG Alan Greenberg - ALAC Sonigitu Ekpe - NCUC Carlos Raul Gutierrez - GNSO Councilor Donna Austin - RrSG Cecilia Smith - no soi Jean-François Vanden Eynde - RrSG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Stéphane van Gelder - BC Apologies: Kristina Rosette - RySG Katim Touray - Individual Alain Artero - NCUC ICANN staff: Glen de Saint Gery Marika Konings Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 27 April 2015: Terri Agnew: Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 27 April 2015 Sonigitu Ekpe:Greetings from Geneva. Terri Agnew:Welcome Sonigitu Sonigitu Ekpe:Thank you Terri. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good morning. On hold with the service. There is a wait to join.... Stuart Fuller:Good afternoon from London all Avri Doria:good to have a forcing date Terri Agnew:Liz Williams and JF Vanden Eyde has joined Liz Williams:there are some comments that I submitted about the "global public interest" and "compliance" which I have put in. Liz Williams:We would aim to have a fresh set of documents ready for the council to consider. Terri Agnew:Stephanie Duchesneau has joined Terri Agnew:Phili Buckingham has joined Carlos Raul:Avri;s sound is not very good today Carlos Raul:hard to follow Avri Doria:Indeed, some people is a capeau statement. to call i passionate is to denigrate it. Avri Doria:'some people' should be in a chapeau. Avri Doria:dont denigrate it by calling it merely paSSION Avri Doria:we are collecting impressions, not deciders of mater of fact. Avri Doria:... of matters of fact Steve Chan:Draft documents available here: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables Philip Sheppard BRG:bye everyone

1 0

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 13 April 2015
by Terri Agnew April 13, 2015

April 13, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 13 April 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-13apr15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Dietmer Lenden - RySG Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - BRG Stuart Fuller - RrSG Christopher Niemi- no soi Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - Individual Ken Hansen - no SOI Jon Nevett - RySG Kristina Rosette - RySG Katim Touray - Individual Sam Lanfranco - NPOC Rubens Kuhl - RySG Tom Lowenhaupt - ALAC Apologies: Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Jeff Neuman-RySG Liz Williams - RySG Alan Greenberg - ALAC ICANN staff: Glen de Saint Gery Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/OrXhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 13 April 2015: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 13 April 2015 Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Here Ken Hansen (.co.com Registry):Hi everyone Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good morning Ken Ken Hansen (.co.com Registry):mornin' Bret! Katim S. Touray:Hi Everyone! Stuart Fuller:Hi - apologies for late arrival Terri Agnew:Christopher Niemi and Phil Buckingham has joined Terri Agnew:Welcome Stuart Fuller Terri Agnew:Kristina Roseete has joined Kristina Rosette (Amazon):Hi everyone! Terri Agnew:corrected spelling: Kristina Rosette Ken Hansen (.co.com Registry):Hi Kristina! Philip Sheppard BRG:Sorry for late arrival - fist Connect request failed Terri Agnew:Sam Lanfranco has joined Terri Agnew:Rubens Kuhl has joined Rubens Kuhl:I couldn't connect using Safari, but it worked using Chrome. Possibily some connectivity issue to diagnose. Terri Agnew:@Rubens, please let me know if you need help Terri Agnew:Tom Lowenhaupt has joined Rubens Kuhl:Now that I've joined I don't need help, but it's possible some people are being prevented from joining Jon Nevett (Donuts):makes sense -- thanks Bret Phil Buckingham:agreed Bret - what they need to see. Steve Chan:Steve! Kristina Rosette (Amazon):Excellent, thanks! Katim S. Touray:I have quickly gone over the draft and its very good for a draft. Keep up the great work! Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:I think also Thank you Katim Susan Payne - Valideus:Group 1 have various questions addressing Avri's second point Steve Chan:@Susan, thanks, was going to raise that point Avri Doria:either no procedure (unlkely) or a procedure other than rounds. Katim S. Touray:My feeling is that the overwhelming sentiment is that another round or rounds is a foregone conclusion. Philip Sheppard BRG:Will an editable draft charter now be sent to the list also ? Avri Doria:my pint is that the PDPD shuld not have any forgone conclusions Steve Chan:@Philip, a Word doc was sent on Friday, but we have edits that need to be made Tom Lowenhaupt:It's a bit early, but I'll take a pint as well. Philip Sheppard BRG:OK Ill look back Sam Lanfranco:Bye...back to list... Steve Chan:So you could wait for the new version or edit the existing one that was already sent

1 0

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 10, 2015

April 10, 2015

Dear DG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the upcoming meeting. In addition, attached, please find the Draft Charter, which will be discussed in relation to item 2 of the agenda. A fair amount of the draft charter contains essentially boilerplate language found in most PDP charters, so I would suggest that the most important section to review is Section II: Mission & Scope. The issues identified by this DG have been organized into the groupings suggested by Jeff Neuman and the charter attempts to capture the high level questions to consider, which is not necessarily intended to be exhaustive nor replace or supersede the issues as described in the matrix. Proposed Agenda New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Monday 13 April at 14:00 UTC 1. Roll Call / Updates to SOIs 2. Review Draft Charter 3. Project Timing 4. Confirm next meeting Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
by Volker Greimann April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

I fully agree and tried to make that comment in my response. Might have gotten lost as it is below my signature ,-) Volker Am 09.04.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Jeff Neuman: > > All, > > These are really great conversations on the substance of the > particular issues, but I just wanted to remind everyone that our > limited job here is to identify the issues (which I think we have > done) and make sure they are represented in the issue matrix. We > would love to have all of those comments in ASAP along with comments > on the executive summary and other docs that were forwarded around. > > Best regards, > > Jeff > > *From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann > *Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2015 11:29 AM > *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive > Summary and gTLD Matrix > > Hi Alain, > > I fear I agree that this would probably be seen as anti-competitive as > it would exclude those applicants looking to spread the risk and cost > over as many TLDs as possible. Maybe a merit-based grading system of > contested applications would actually solve this problem much better > as large protfolio applicants would face a disadvantage in crafting > individual and tailored registration policies and applications as > opposed to boutique applicants. > > Best, > > Volker > > Anyway, in the current round, big players and speculators have too > much influence on the rules and impact public interest in a > negative way… This has to be addressed one way or another. > > Actually, this conclusion would have to be proven. While many view > certain issues as detrimental (as do I), there may not be an actual > harm outweighing potential benefits. I would hesitate to assign > judgement on any potential issue at this time. That would follow in > the later review and analysis. > > > > Regards > > Alain > > *Alain ARTERO* > TLDs project manager .radio > > > *EBU * > OPERATING EUROVISION AND EURORADIO > > *EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION > *L’Ancienne-Route 17A > 1218 Le Grand-Saconnex > Geneva, Switzerland > > T +41(0)22 717 21 58 > www.eurovision.com <http://www.eurovision.com/> > > *From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker > Greimann > *Sent:* jeudi 9 avril 2015 16:11 > *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the > Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix > > Instead of capping the number of applications any entity can make, > it might be helpful to ensure a system to resolve contention sets > in a different manner than in the current round. A continuation of > the current auction model might lead to gaming as well, where > parties with no interest in running a TLD could feel encouraged to > take a chance at the post-private-auction payout. > > In any case, a cap on applications by any one entity is easily > circumventable by creating holding companies for each application. > > Volker > > Am 07.04.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: > > Michael > > Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one > application each? > > Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being > more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply > circumvented > > Regards > > Michele > > -- > > Mr Michele Neylon > > Blacknight Solutions > > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > > http://www.blacknight.host/ > > http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media > releases & coverage > > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > > http://www.technology.ie/ > > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > > Social: http://mneylon.social > > ------------------------------- > > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside > Business Park,Sleaty > > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > *From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of > *Michael D. Palage > *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM > *To:* 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; > gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the > Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix > > Hello All, > > Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to > restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is > fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is > really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way > Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if > ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future. > > I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to > focus on the weighing of community applications and potential > alternate resolution option in connection with contention > sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in > connection with this round with a number of community / > community like applications being held hostage or eliminated > by deep pocket portfolio applicants. > > This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that > I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see > http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_co… > I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to > our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > *From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> > [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of > *Tijani BEN JEMAA > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM > *To:* avri(a)acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>; > gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> > *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the > Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix > > Avri, > > GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND > > 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single > group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and > M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts... > > This because the slate applications create war machines where > the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use > all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering > competitors; > > Agree > > 2. Create for community based applications‎ some simple rules > as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the > rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) > to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities > applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo > communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar > strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so. > > For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at > regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this > give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations > don't exist in all continents. > > For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the > criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted > to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in > countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident > nonsense. > > While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons: > > ·For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right > of having their own string, but we need to find the right way > to support them in their application, exactly like we must do > for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil > community who want to have their string to promote their > language and their culture) > > ·Community based applications were not assessed against clear > and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment > was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties > that the process will not be gamed, but there must be > guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and > objective manner. > > 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for > developing countries and poorer regions of the world ‎. > > Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and > underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a > priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be > characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of > course the support have to be expressed by real and existing > bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local > offices of Western companies…. > > There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for > developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a > fair proposal because the competition between those applicants > and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the > same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination > > If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions > and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for > example: > > ·Since the program development cost was recovered, I think > that this kind of application should be free of charge > (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering > the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait > for the upcoming round when we will recover the program > developing cost”). > > ·An accompanying support program should be developed to help > these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply) > > 4. Clear rules against filibustering > > Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant > position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and > multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the > claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing > deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be > lost in case of defeat. > > At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to > those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under > contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could > blackmail everybody oppose them. > > Agree > > 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute > > Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to > have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based > organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to > set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker > subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A > sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, > no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances > also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… > > Agree > > 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN > > Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy > could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting > effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent > that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency > (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of > ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ? > > Absolutely > > SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE > > ‎A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable > and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators; > > B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be > made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the > EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to > judge about the best vegetarian dish. > > If the scope is to evaluate ‎communities, then ICANN has to > ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies > in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand > the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the > territorial entities, and so on; > > C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total > nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be > recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar > has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and > to keep them out of the door. > > D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning > communities need to be established in partnership with the > community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG > that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally > different scope: to make money out of it > > E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey > areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to > verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been > called and who was not. There was no way to communicate > changes of names (the responsible people change within > democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within > the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special > task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the > applicants > > F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH > letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it > can go only checking some samplers… > > I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Image removed by sender. <http://www.avast.com/> > > > > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel > malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! > <http://www.avast.com/>est active. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list > > Gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg > > > > > -- > > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. > > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > > > Volker A. Greimann > > - Rechtsabteilung - > > > > Key-Systems GmbH > > Im Oberen Werk 1 > > 66386 St. Ingbert > > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > > Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> > > > > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin > > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > > www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> > > > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > > > -------------------------------------------- > > > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Volker A. Greimann > > - legal department - > > > > Key-Systems GmbH > > Im Oberen Werk 1 > > 66386 St. Ingbert > > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > > Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> > > > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > > www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> > > > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ***************************************************** > *This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. * > *If you have received this email in error, please notify the > system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email > message has been swept by the mailgateway* > *************************************************** ** > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list > > Gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg > > > > -- > Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > > Volker A. Greimann > - Rechtsabteilung - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> > > Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin > Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> > > Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > > -------------------------------------------- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> > > Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> > www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> > > Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: > www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> > www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> > > CEO: Alexander Siffrin > Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken > V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > > Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP > www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> > > This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
by Volker Greimann April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

I am sorry to raise this at such a late stage, but I feel as part of the discussion and analysis prior to the next round, some of the (currently legal) practices or abilities by registries should be reviewed and if necessary included in an updated code of conduct or additional policy. While it could be argued that any additional limitations here could be a limitation of creativeness and innovation in the marketplace, they may also have an impact on consumer trust. Amongst these I would count topics such as: - Reservation of domain names for Registry or affiliated entities for purposes not directly related to the provision of registry services - Introduction of limitations on the ability of registries to raise prices, assign domains into different categories after registration or to change assignment into classes at will. There currently is no rule prohibiting on placing domains on (or removing them from) restricted lists or premium lists at any time prior to registration. in some cases, classes of domains may be changed after registration. - Premium pricing models for renewals and transfers as well as the impact of such variable registry pricing on domain transferability, current transfer policy and current registrar obligations on clarity of pricing. - Ability of Registry to market directly to or otherwise contact potential customers - Lack of differentiation between registry and affiliated or integrated registrar entity (i.e. lack of clear identification which entity is acting) - need for a clear seperation of registry and registrar entities in their internet presences, naming, etc. - Introduction of policies or contractual provisions by a registry that reach beyond the TLD at hand, i.e. mandating certain registrar or registrant behaviour in other TLDs not operated by operator. Now, I am not asserting that any of these are necessessarily reactions to harmful practices, however they should be reviewed as part of the general picture. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
by Michael D. Palage April 9, 2015

April 9, 2015

Hello All, Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes. Attempting to restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future. I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to focus on the weighing of community applications and potential alternate resolution option in connection with contention sets. This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in connection with this round with a number of community / community like applications being held hostage or eliminated by deep pocket portfolio applicants. This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_co… I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago. Best regards, Michael From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tijani BEN JEMAA Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM To: avri(a)acm.org; gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix Avri, GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts... This because the slate applications create war machines where the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors; Agree 2. Create for community based applications‎ some simple rules as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so. For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in all continents. For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense. While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons: * For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right of having their own string, but we need to find the right way to support them in their application, exactly like we must do for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil community who want to have their string to promote their language and their culture) * Community based applications were not assessed against clear and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties that the process will not be gamed, but there must be guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and objective manner. 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing countries and poorer regions of the world ‎. Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local offices of Western companies…. There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a fair proposal because the competition between those applicants and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for example: * Since the program development cost was recovered, I think that this kind of application should be free of charge (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait for the upcoming round when we will recover the program developing cost”). * An accompanying support program should be developed to help these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply) 4. Clear rules against filibustering Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat. At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them. Agree 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… Agree 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ? Absolutely SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE ‎A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators; B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best vegetarian dish. If the scope is to evaluate ‎communities, then ICANN has to ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on; C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door. D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the applicants F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only checking some samplers… I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection <http://www.avast.com/> Antivirus avast! est active.

4 4

Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
by Avri Doria April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Hi, Some of the questions/comments I have received passed on without attribution. I asked people to send them in directly if they wished. But just so the points aren't missed. > /IG F/ > > Was community contention resolution efficient? What improvements could > be made to improve efficiency for all parties? Impacts on efficiency > included: CPE could only begin once all contention set applications > had cleared initial and/or extended evaluation (this was later > changed). CO was extremely expensive and in Euros. CPE took up to six > months. Nearly all community applications resulted in some form of > Ombudsman/DIDP/RfR/CEP/IRP action. > > > /IG H / > > What alternative processes – e.g. qualitative assessments – apart from > or in tandem with a points or scoring system for assessing the > existence of a community and the community relationship with applicant > could yield more fulsome and accurate results? > > Could community experts, e.g. sociologists, anthropologists, > economists, etc. be engaged in the development and implementation of > this recommendation? > > Were the goals & intent of the community priority process clearly > communicated to prospective applicants? Could clearer communication > result in better quality applications (i.e. non-election by parties > likely to fail and increased election by parties likely to prevail). > > /IG P / > > Are these the correct criterion for assessing the existence of a > community? > > Are they based on research? > > Could they have been peer-reviewed by a panel of academic and > community experts? > > What other approaches for verifying community could exist? > > and > > GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND > > 1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single group > (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and M & M using > subsidiaries or other signposts... > > This because the slate applications create war machines where the > economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use all degrees > of possibles claims just to filibustering competitors; > > > > 2. Create for community based applications‎ some simple rules as was > made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the rules for geo > names, discourage the vultures (not all of them) to apply for geo > names when the appropriate legal entities applied. The unclarity of > the rules for the other non-geo communities pushed many gTLD to defy > community based similar strings. In most of the case they were right > in doing so. > > For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at > regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this give a > legitimacy as a community, even if such associations don't exist in > all continents. > > For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the criteria of > geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted to existing > situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in countries where still > homosexuality is a crime is an evident nonsense. > > > > 3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for developing > countries and poorer regions of the world ‎. > > > > Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and > underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a priority. If > this will not happen, even the next round will be characterized by a > predominance of the western applicants. Of course the support have to > be expressed by real and existing bodies, not from mirror entities of > multinationals or local offices of Western companies…. > > > > 4. Clear rules against filibustering > > Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant position. > Those that make opposition without solid ground and multiple > opposition to any competitor and that loose the claims need to be > penalized. For instance imposing a growing deposits of sums in case of > multiple oppositions that will be lost in case of defeat. > > At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to those > that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under contract. For these > latter, at a marginal cost, they could blackmail everybody oppose them. > > > > 5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute > > Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to have > disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based organization (such as > .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to set aside a fund or a group of > experts to assists the weaker subjects when they have to oppose this > kind of adversary. A sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: > lesser fees, no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of > chances also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches… > > > > 6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN > > Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy could > apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting effects on the > democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent that the Big 3 or 5 > take over the whole gNSO constituency (achieving a practical > possibility of veto of any decisions of ICANN they dislike or that > could hamper their interests ? > > > > > > SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE > > ‎A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable and too > much left to the discretion of the evaluators; > > B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be made > taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the EIU to judge > about community is like asking a carnivore to judge about the best > vegetarian dish. > > If the scope is to evaluate ‎communities, then ICANN has to ask to > association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies in charge of > humanitarian issues, because they can understand the representativity > of the applicants, its relations with the territorial entities, and so on; > > C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total nonsense. > There is no reason to have such a high score to be recognized as a > community. The natural suspect is that the bar has been put so high to > boycott the community applicants and to keep them out of the door. > > D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning communities > need to be established in partnership with the community TLDs. Their > interest cannot be represented by RySG that is mainly populated by > people that pursue a totally different scope: to make money out of it > > E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey areas > where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to verify who > (among the supporting organizations) has been called and who was not. > There was no way to communicate changes of names (the responsible > people change within democratically elected bodies) of the person to > contact within the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a > special task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the > applicants > > F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH letter of > support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it can go only > checking some samplers… > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

3 3

- Proposed Agenda
by Steve Chan April 1, 2015

April 1, 2015

Dear DG Members, Please find the proposed agenda for Monday¹s call. I am re-distributing the latest versions of the issues/recommendations matrix and the executive summary. While it was proposed by Jeff on the 16 March call that there be a 31 March deadline for comment on these two documents, it would be helpful if input is received prior to the call on Monday, so as to allow for discussion during the call. In addition, in support of item three on the agenda, I am providing a draft timeline document that illustrates one path forward to the completion of this group¹s work, a possible issue report request, and initiation of possible PDP(s). Proposed Agenda New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Monday 30 March at 15:00 UTC 1. Roll Call / Updates to SOIs 2. Agreement on Final Deliverables > * Last Call for comments for Executive Summary and Matrix > * Discussion about Charter 3. Project Timing 4. Confirm next meeting Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan(a)icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

4 4