Avri, 
I’m not sure I understand this completely, so I am hoping you can provide more details. My first reaction is that the global public interest was served by expanding the choices available when registering a domain name, bringing competition to the registry services space, and allowing people and companies to name themselves online with a label that provides greater semantic meaning. I also have statistics that show me that a meaningful number of registrations in Uniregistry TLDs come from countries identified as “developing countries” under either the UN or IMF definitions. To me, that’s a global public interest that was served.

Now, I don’t propose to have that debate here, but is what I wrote above addressed to your issue, or were you raising something else? I think we already have identified issues around making sure that future registries come from developing economies. 

         Bret



On Mar 18, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi

I think one whole group of issues is missing  from we need to have dealt with in the review.

Did the gTLD server the pubic interest?  It what ways could it have done this better?  In terms of the future how do we design the policy to make sure that the global public interests, such as inclusion of developing economies and poor communities is supported?  This is one area where many consider the gTLD to have bee na complete failure and to not have that represented as a section of our work seems a deficit.


avri


On 16-Mar-15 12:50, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear DG Members,

As discussed on today’s 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 Shepard’s 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@icann.org

direct: +1.310.301.3886
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg



This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com


_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg




-- 
Bret Fausett, Esq.
General Counsel, Uniregistry, Corp.

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
mobile +1 310 985 1351
office +1 949 706 2300 x4201
UTC -8 hours  • http://uniregistry.link