Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast! est active. |