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

- 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

**with updated affiliation/ Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 30 March 2015
by Terri Agnew March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

**with updated affiliation Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 30 March 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-30mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Dietmer Lenden - RySG Christa Taylor - Individual Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - BRG Stuart Fuller - RrSG Donna Austin - RrSG Christopher Niemi- no soi Alan Greenberg - ALAC Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - Individual Jean-François Vanden Eynde - RrSG Cecilia Smith - no SOI Ken Hansen - no SOI Michael Palage - RySG Alain Artero - no SOI Apologies: Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Tony Holmes - ISPCP ICANN staff: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Gery Amy Bivins Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Yolanda Jimenez 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 30 March 2015: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 30 March 2015 Stuart Fuller:Hi Terri, Hi all Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Is anyone else having trouble dialing in? Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good morning everyone. Jeff, please let me know when you are in the conference. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):still trying Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Hi SF Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am getting in Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:One minute Terri. We were disconnected. By disconnected, I mean that I tried to take us off mute and pushed the wrong button. Terri Agnew:ok Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am in Terri Agnew:Michael Palage has joined Terri Agnew:Phil Buckingham has joined Phil Buckingham:Apologises for my lateness Alan Greenberg:Jeff, all true, but if Bret (for instance) left this meeting with the intent to FORMALLY introduce this as a motion in May, then it would have to be voted in June. If just sent for information, then perfect. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):who is rushing this? Alan Greenberg:Agree with Avri - that is what I was suggesting (or trying to) Philip Sheppard BRG:Or just say a non-exclusive list of issues Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Philip - That was the plan Philip Sheppard BRG:In big letters at the top Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Can we ask for a session at the BA meeting Jeff Neuman (Valideus):At a reasonable (Non 7am meeting time) Philip Sheppard BRG:A F2F Buenos Aires meeting would attract wide interest - its a good idea Avri Doria:and there is a chance we wont be done and will have actual work to still do. Susan Payne - Valideus:+ 1 Jeff, I have never been able to make any of the DG meetings because of conflict with GAC sessions on future round issiu Susan Payne - Valideus:issues (fat fingers!) Susan Payne - Valideus:The audio from Avri and now Philip is appalling, I don't know if others are encountering this too? So distorted as to be almost imposasible to hear what you are saying. Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks agree with Bret Philip Sheppard BRG:Understood Jeff n - thanks Philip Sheppard BRG:Of course the GNSO policy had gaps (mea culpa) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):yeah...thanks Philip :) Phil Buckingham:thanks Jeff for clarification Philip Sheppard BRG:Good objective Steve Jeff Neuman (Valideus):My own opinion in looking back at the policies is that the GNSO did a pretty good job on principles Jeff Neuman (Valideus):But the execution did not necessarily meet the policy objectives Philip Sheppard BRG:+1 Alain Artero:thank you Philip Sheppard BRG:Bye thanks all

1 0

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 30 March 2015
by Terri Agnew March 30, 2015

March 30, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 30 March 2015 at 14:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-30mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Dietmer Lenden - RySG Christa Taylor - Individual Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - Individual Stuart Fuller - RrSG Donna Austin - RrSG Christopher Niemi- no soi Alan Greenberg - ALAC Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - Individual Jean-François Vanden Eynde - RrSG Cecilia Smith - no SOI Ken Hansen - no SOI Michael Palage - RySG Alain Artero - no SOI Apologies: Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Tony Holmes - ISPCP ICANN staff: Marika Konings Glen de Saint Gery Amy Bivins Steve Chan Lars Hoffmann Yolanda Jimenez 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 30 March 2015: Terri Agnew:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 30 March 2015 Stuart Fuller:Hi Terri, Hi all Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Is anyone else having trouble dialing in? Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good morning everyone. Jeff, please let me know when you are in the conference. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):still trying Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Hi SF Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am getting in Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:One minute Terri. We were disconnected. By disconnected, I mean that I tried to take us off mute and pushed the wrong button. Terri Agnew:ok Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i am in Terri Agnew:Michael Palage has joined Terri Agnew:Phil Buckingham has joined Phil Buckingham:Apologises for my lateness Alan Greenberg:Jeff, all true, but if Bret (for instance) left this meeting with the intent to FORMALLY introduce this as a motion in May, then it would have to be voted in June. If just sent for information, then perfect. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):who is rushing this? Alan Greenberg:Agree with Avri - that is what I was suggesting (or trying to) Philip Sheppard BRG:Or just say a non-exclusive list of issues Jeff Neuman (Valideus):@Philip - That was the plan Philip Sheppard BRG:In big letters at the top Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Can we ask for a session at the BA meeting Jeff Neuman (Valideus):At a reasonable (Non 7am meeting time) Philip Sheppard BRG:A F2F Buenos Aires meeting would attract wide interest - its a good idea Avri Doria:and there is a chance we wont be done and will have actual work to still do. Susan Payne - Valideus:+ 1 Jeff, I have never been able to make any of the DG meetings because of conflict with GAC sessions on future round issiu Susan Payne - Valideus:issues (fat fingers!) Susan Payne - Valideus:The audio from Avri and now Philip is appalling, I don't know if others are encountering this too? So distorted as to be almost imposasible to hear what you are saying. Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks agree with Bret Philip Sheppard BRG:Understood Jeff n - thanks Philip Sheppard BRG:Of course the GNSO policy had gaps (mea culpa) Jeff Neuman (Valideus):yeah...thanks Philip :) Phil Buckingham:thanks Jeff for clarification Philip Sheppard BRG:Good objective Steve Jeff Neuman (Valideus):My own opinion in looking back at the policies is that the GNSO did a pretty good job on principles Jeff Neuman (Valideus):But the execution did not necessarily meet the policy objectives Philip Sheppard BRG:+1 Alain Artero:thank you Philip Sheppard BRG:Bye thanks all

1 0

- Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary
by Steve Chan March 23, 2015

March 23, 2015

Dear DG Members, As discussed on today¹s group call, staff is circulating the updated Issues / Recommendations matrix that was last edited by Jeff Neuman, along with his short explanation regarding the proposed groupings he included in the document (see below). I have also included his updated Executive Summary. As noted by Jeff on the call, the co-chairs request feedback by 30 Mar 2015 and preferably before, so as to be able to include for discussion during the DG call on 30 Mar 2015 at 14:00 UTC. Note, I have incorporated Philip Shepard¹s proposed changes into tab 2 of the attached Excel sheet. "I refer to the Matrix that has Policies A-G, 1-20 and IG A through IG-R. With respect to the Potential New topics I refer to Excel row number in that 2nd tab) Group 1: Overall Process / Support / Outreach : A, C, 1, 9, 10 (concept), 12 (Concept), 13, IG A, IG B, IG C, IG D, IG E, IG I, IG M, IG N, IG O, IG Q, New Row 3) Group 2: Legal / Regulatory: 5, 10 (substance), 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, IG J, IG K, IG L, New Row 2, New Row 4, New Row 5, New Row 6 Group 3: Contentions / Objections & Disputes: G, 2, 3, 6, 12, 20, IG F, IG H, IG P, IG R Group 4: Internationalized Domain Names: B, 18 Group 5: Technical and Operations: D, E, F, 4, 7, 8, New Row 7 (Name Collision)" 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

9 16

Attendance and MP3 New gTLDs meeting - Monday 16 March 2015
by Terri Agnew March 16, 2015

March 16, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 16 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16mar15-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>m<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar>ar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Bret Fausett - RySG Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG Jeff Neuman-RySG Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC Dietmer Lenden - RySG Christa Taylor - Individual Rubens Kuhl- RySG Katim S. Touray - Individual Lucie Loos - Individual Avri Doria - NCSG Philip Sheppard - Individual Stuart Fuller - RrSG Jonathan Frost - RySG Sonigitu Ekpe - NCUC Donna Austin - RrSG Jon Nevett - RySG Sam Lanfranco - NPOC Arnaud Wittersheim - RrSG Kristina Rosette - RySG Evan Leibovitch - ALAC Tom Lowenhaupt - ALAC Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC Christopher Niemi- no soi Cecilia Smith - no soi Apologies: Alan Greenberg - ALAC Steven Coates - BC (no SOI) Susan Payne - IPC Phil Buckingham - ICANN staff: Mary Wong 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 16 March 2015: Terri Agnew: Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 16 March 2015 Sonigitu Ekpe:Good day all! Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Hello everyone Christopher Niemi:YEs Avri Doria:Apologies for not having submitted. just catching up today before the meeting. have concerns withthe commuity related material. Terri Agnew:Welcome Arnaud Wittersheim, Christa Taylor and Kristina Rosette Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Thanks Avri. When do you think we will be able to get comments/ Avri Doria:will aim for getting it done this week. several of us from the commuity applicants are looking at it as well. Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Thanks Avri Doria:now it Avri Doria:is Rubens Kuhl:I think there is one point for limited rounds, whether they are limited to communities, developing countries, brands etc. Evan Leibovitch:yes Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Jeff makes a good point. I am sure I will see all of you on the other side of the GNSO resolution, when we create the policy development group, so we will get to the substance very soon. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Bret and Jeff Evan Leibovitch:there will be ALAC participation as well, from both inside and outside of the PDP Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Good to hear, Evan. Thanks. Avri Doria:good idea about having staff on a call. Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Thanks Evan, i would hope most of it is within the PDPs Terri Agnew:Welcome Tom Lowenhaupt Steve Chan:No problem Philip Evan Leibovitch:outside, in case there are implementation issues that a pdp might consider out of scope. Avri Doria:with a 1000+ applicants to analyse, it should be possible to carve out several tracks and the attributes of thes tracks. Terri Agnew:Welcome Kiran Malancharuvil Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Terri. Sorry for being late. Jon Nevett:Agree with Jeff that there were policies decided by staff that need to be reviewed for next round Philip Sheppard BRG:Sorry hand is not lowering ! Avri Doria:it looks lowered Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:+1 Jon and Jeff Stuart Fuller:Ditto Avri Doria:me too, may issue where policy was created by staff. Avri Doria:.. many ... Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Can we get someone to commit to sending the drafts to each of the constituencies and ALAC? Donna Austin, ARI:What a decisions by the NGPC made in response to GAC advice considered to be? Policy or implementation. Evan Leibovitch:The ALAC had big problems with the community evaluation process. Is that considered policy or implementation? Avri Doria:Both policy and implementation, i beleive. Jon Nevett:ALAC isn't alone! Avri Doria:The policy was not speicifc enough (as most of the policies at that time) and the implemtnation made policy. Evan Leibovitch:Thanks. That sounds accurate. Steve Chan:Sure thing Mary Wong:Some of the questions you're asking led in part to the GNSO Council chartering the Policy & Implementation Working Group, for whose Initial Report the public comment period closes tomorrow :) Should that WG's recommendations be adopted - including a set of Working Principles and a few additional processes for the GNSO as a whole to provide input into implementation work - hopefully they will also assist this group and the potential eventual PDP that results. Avri Doria:good point MAry Philip Sheppard BRG:+1 Jon Nevett:please resend matrix with Jeff's comments Cecilia Smith:How do we provide comments on these items? Stephanie Duchesneau (Neustar):+1 have not seen the matrix on list Cecilia Smith:Thanks Sam Lanfranco:Thanks Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Thanks Jeff!! Philip Sheppard BRG:Thanks all Christa Taylor:Great works. Thanks. Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:Thanks Jeff Evan Leibovitch:bye Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:bye Kristina Rosette - Amazon:Thanks. Christopher Niemi:Thanks. Arnaud Wittersheim:Thanks all

1 0