- Gnso-newgtld-dg - lists.icann.org

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Draft Issue Categorization
by Katim S. Touray Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

Dear all, I am writing in support of suggestions from Tijani Ben Jemaa and Avri Doria with regards the issue of support for "underserved regions." In particular, I support a strengthening of outreach efforts, and having a special round for developing countries. I also suggest that we add that such a special round for developing countries should seek partnerships with development organizations such as the World Bank, the African, Asian, and Inter-American Development Banks to raise more funding support from applicants from developing countries. Other suggestions I have with regards to support for applications from developing countries are: 1. Staff should not be allowed to scuttle applications by tampering with implementation guidelines developed by the community. Where staff suggestions can materially impact applications, they should be referred back to the community before they are implemented. 2. Expunge the term "Underserved Regions" from our literature because it is not what the international development community uses to refer to countries ICANN has in mind. I suggest we use "Developing Countries" instead, since everyone has an idea what that means, and it is what the international development community uses. With regards the other issues, my suggestions are as follows: 1. I suggest we remove the reference to Digital Archery (in the Application Processing section) given it was not implemented and, from what I gather, the lottery system worked well 2. I found the TAS not buggy and error prone, but very cumbersome! It's designers must also bear in mind that many in developing countries have slow Internet connections. 3. ICANN has to find a way to work more effectively with banks in developing countries to facilitate its transactions with gTLD applicants. My feeling is that the conditions imposed by ICANN for COIs were especially onerous for people in developing countries. That's about it for now. Katim On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa(a)fmai.org.tn> wrote: > Hi Steve, > > > > I added some lines in bleu to the paragraph on Supporting Underserved > Regions (see below) > > > > *Supporting underserved regions* > > Lack of outreach for the new gTLD program in the underserved regions > > Lack of outreach for the Applicant Support Program > > Limited usage of Applicant Support process > > Excessive gaming protections and late developing rules reduced few JAS > applications > > Made up new processes after final AGB (need examples) > > Dedicated round for applicants from developing economies and poor > communities > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > *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 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > *De :* gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces(a)icann.org] *De la part de* Steve Chan > *Envoyé :* vendredi 3 octobre 2014 00:39 > *À :* gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org > *Objet :* [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Draft Issue Categorization > > > > Dear DG Members, > > > > Following the email detailing the proposed agenda, please find attached a > draft mind map that staff has prepared to attempt to categorize the issues > identified by DG members. This draft is expected to serve as a point of > discussion in regards to item 3 of the proposed agenda. It is suggested > that DG members review the draft ahead of time to ensure that their issues > are both included and captured accurately. > > > > Note, the draft mind map is attached as a PDF, as well as text, for > options in reviewing the document. > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > *Steven Chan* > Sr. Policy Manager > > *ICANN* > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > steve.chan(a)icann.org > <steve.chan(a)icann.org> > direct: +1.310.301.3886 > mobile: +1.310.339.4410 > > tel: +1.310.301.5800 > > fax: +1.310.823.8649 > > > ------------------------------ > <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 > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg > >

3 2

Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Draft Issue Categorization
by Pam Little Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

Dear DG Colleagues, I apologize for missing previous meetings and the meeting scheduled for 6 October at 14:00 UTC due to time zone issue. I have a few comments or suggestions regarding items listed on the draft Mind Map for your consideration. 1. "Ombudsman processes need to be formalized" - I would like to propose a minor amendment to read: "Ombudsman processes and timelines need to be formalized". 2. The following "Registrar Concerns" seem more or less relating to non-discriminatory treatment or non-discriminatory access to registry services: . Requirement for provision of RAA [sic] in English non-binding reference copy . Sunrise notice requirement expanded to availability of complete accreditation documentation and agreements at the time of the sunrise notice to allow timely accreditation . Ry requirements to disclose all promotional programs offered to registrars . More transparency in contracting (NDAs, RRA, side letters, etc.) So perhaps "clarify the requirement of non-discriminatory access to registry services" should be the issue and the above could be examples or detailed implementation requirements instead. If not, I would suggest this issue be looked under "Review of vertical integration and its marketplace impact" (currently under Misc). 3. In addition, I would suggest adding two new issues under Misc: a. Review non-discriminatory treatment as it applies to registries (see Section 3 of ICANN Bylaws below) b. Review ICANN's conflict of interest framework and enforcement Section 3. NON-DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT ICANN shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures, or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective competition. Regards, Pam Little From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 9:39 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Draft Issue Categorization Dear DG Members, Following the email detailing the proposed agenda, please find attached a draft mind map that staff has prepared to attempt to categorize the issues identified by DG members. This draft is expected to serve as a point of discussion in regards to item 3 of the proposed agenda. It is suggested that DG members review the draft ahead of time to ensure that their issues are both included and captured accurately. Note, the draft mind map is attached as a PDF, as well as text, for options in reviewing the document. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> steve.chan(a)icann.org direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649

1 0

- Draft Issue Categorization
by Steve Chan Oct. 3, 2014

Oct. 3, 2014

Dear DG Members, Following the email detailing the proposed agenda, please find attached a draft mind map that staff has prepared to attempt to categorize the issues identified by DG members. This draft is expected to serve as a point of discussion in regards to item 3 of the proposed agenda. It is suggested that DG members review the draft ahead of time to ensure that their issues are both included and captured accurately. Note, the draft mind map is attached as a PDF, as well as text, for options in reviewing the document. 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

5 4

- Proposed Agenda for 6 October 2014
by Steve Chan Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Dear DG Members, Below, please find the agenda for the meeting scheduled for 6 October at 14:00 UTC. The Mind Map draft mentioned in item three will be sent in a separate email. As a reminder, participation during the call is expected to be limited to members of the discussion group while mail list observers may follow the group¹s work via the mailing list, MP3s, and transcripts. Proposed Agenda Discussion Group: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 6 October 2014 1. Roll Call / SOI 2. Review of work to date 3. Discuss Issues Categorization Mind Map Draft 4. Planning for ICANN Los Angeles face-to-face session 5. Next steps 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

New gTLD Program Reviews and Assessments
by Tobias Sattler Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Did we have that already? http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/reviews-assessments-draft-work-… Tobias

2 1

FW: Latest report on gTLDs from ICANN staff
by Ron Andruff Sept. 23, 2014

Sept. 23, 2014

Dear all, This report (attached) from staff will hopefully add some value to the reality of this DG's timeline considerations. In short: "As of this writing, 404 new gTLDs have been delegated. A total of 1,168 applicants have been invited to contracting. Of those applications in string contention sets, 49% remain subject to contention resolution procedures, which are forecast to be completed by the third quarter of 2016. ICANN anticipates contracting to be completed by the end of 2016, and pre-delegation testing by early 2017, before completing all the new delegations by mid-2017." Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff dotSport LLC www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com>

3 2

- 6 Oct Meeting Time Poll
by Steve Chan Sept. 19, 2014

Sept. 19, 2014

Dear DG Members, I hope this email finds you well. At your earliest convenience, please complete the Doodle Poll to determine the time of this group¹s next meeting: http://doodle.com/yd4dbb4hpat4vggr 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

- Issue Collection Template
by Steve Chan Sept. 13, 2014

Sept. 13, 2014

Dear WG Members, For those that were able to attend the call on 8 Sept or listen to the MP3, you will have heard me mention a template that is intended to assist in collecting issues. Attached, please find that template. I would ask that this template be completed for each individual issue, even for those that have already been shared with the email list or on the Wiki. It is my view that this template will be beneficial in understanding the scope of the issue and the path for resolution, be it a Policy Development Process, guidance to the GDD team, or other. Note, this path for resolution is distinct and separate from creating a solution to the issue, which I would consider beyond the scope of what is to be accomplished by this Discussion Group. A couple of other important elements that the template is attempting to capture is the interdependency with other issues and the priority of the issues. Upon completing the templates, please reply and share to the list. I will then post them on the Wiki here (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/Issue+Templates) in an effort to consolidate the contributions in one central location. I will likely create subpages for each individual issue so that if there are multiple contributions for the same issue, they will be grouped and eventually combined into a single document for the issue, with group agreement that the issue is captured properly. Please try to submit your contributions by 22 September 2014. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. 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

5 6

- Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s)
by Steve Chan Sept. 12, 2014

Sept. 12, 2014

Dear DG Members, This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf) Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC. Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. >From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs. 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

13 13

First thoughts on 'next round'
by Avri Doria Sept. 12, 2014

Sept. 12, 2014

Hi, I thought I was in this group, but somehow, I wasn't. I am now, so just catching up. > any subsequent round should be more predictable, timely and accountable. This is certainly a good hope. The first principle of the round we are in was predictability. We see how ell that went. That is the first of many principles I think this round missed on. Accountability at ICANN is a permanent quest. And timely should come with time, and experience. And a few more guidelines. Also now that the garden has been seeded with a thousand possible blooms, it is time to work on specific areas of the garden that may need further development and care. Focusing more on type, might help in terms of timeliness. I question the degree to which we need future rounds like this one for undifferentiated standard applications. It may be time to consider putting those on a rolling first come first served model. Given the skills people developed for digital archery, perhaps these are mini rounds that last a day, sort of like the groupings that were done in this round. I am sure a lots of details would need to be worked out. Especially if there are separate tracks for different sorts of application. If we do any rounds, a problem we need to fix is the ability for those who do compete for names to actually negotiate to change their string. This was something that I believe was in the intent of the GNSO recommendations but that the staff vetoed in its implementation, indicating it would be too hard. In the GNSO PDP we had many discussions about 3 applications for bear, where in the end one went for something like .grizzly, one went for .ursus and one went for .teddy. We would also need to allow another thing I think many of us argued for, but which was rejected by staff such as appeals on name contention and on the determination of confusion. I think that the experience in the current round showed us that this is an area where substantial rework of the processes is required. As I said, I do not really see call for another major round like this round, but rather micro rounds that approach a first come first serve model. I do however, see call for two remedial rounds: 1. I believe we need a remedial for applicants from developing economies. We not only need to make these minimal to no cost, but we need to make sure that outreach is significant and then that aid and other ongoing assistance is available for enabling these to become viable registries. I see this as part of ICANN's commitment to globalization. I believe there is strong support for this in ALAC and GAC. This might also include considerations such as assisting with the creation of regional RSPs in development areas. As the monies from auctions have not yet been allocated, this is one use for those funds. The work JAS did might be helpful, but that is only a step in the direction of the remediation that is required. This is a program that could start planning even before the current round ends given its degree of specialization and its long outreach and education lead time. As I understood it, there had been a very extensive proposal for global outreach before he last round started, but it was cancelled for reason only the staff know. Perhaps it can be dug out of mothballs and reused as part of a remedial plan for developing economies. 2. I believe that we need a round for communities only. We need to remediate the mess made out of community applications in this round. The GNSO created a program that was supposed to nurture and protect community applications. Instead we build a system that attacked them as frauds and put them through an extra special punitive ordeal. This needs to be remediated. Such a round could be similar to the Supported gTLD round which occurred before the current round. I also think that now that we know what the categories of gTLD are, we may want to fine tune the processes so that special variants in the process apply to these categories. Two sizes fit all was a workable model before we understood the variations between types of gTLD. Now we have enough information to be able to create some special considerations and perhaps even some specialized streams of application. The one thing I think we must avoid doing is running the same processes we are currently muddling through. This time, we need to specify the requirements of the program in much greater detail to make sure that the right thing is done in implementation. And whatever we do, we need to take advantage of the Implementation Team approach that is included in the current PDP model so that this runaway mess is less likely to occur again. avri

1 0