Dear DG Members, Note that ³Public Interest Guidance² is referenced on the second tab of the matrix, which is inspired by the 17 Nov Board Resolution, Annex A (https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356545/resolutions-annex -a-17nov14-en%281%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425335213000&api=v2). Staff has included the high level topic in the matrix as a possible area for policy development and echoes Jeff¹s suggestion to add additional detail (i.e., questions/comments) to better understand the scope of the topic. For reference, here is the text from the Board Resolution:
"The New gTLD Program was developed in the spirit of advancing the public interest; however, existing policy advice does not define the application of ³public interest² analysis as a guideline for evaluation determinations on individual applications. Issues such as those identified in GAC advice on safeguards, the development of Public Interest Commitments (PICs), and associated questions of contractual commitment and enforcement may be an area for policy development.²
Additionally, under section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN is committed to examine ³the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice² Presumably this fits within the public interest topic and the DG and possible future PDP(s) may want to consider this review in their deliberations. Best, Steve
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Organization: Technicalities Reply-To: "avri@acm.org" <avri@acm.org> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:28 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary Hi, I think that the program only served one set of interests among the Global Public Interests: It served the interests of businesses from the global north. I believe it failed many other perspectives on the Global Public Interests. thanks avri On 18-Mar-15 15:52, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Avri,
Like Bret, I don¹t understand your comments re Round 1. I think what Round 1 has proved ( although I admit it is very very early days ), is that the global public interest has been served, but the ³ global public² is simply not aware ( yet) that 1400+ new gTLD have and will open up the marketplace to the global public the consumer , to give them better choice(s) , more competition ( therefore lower prices ),better trust in the DNS. We now have IDNs in Arabic, Chinese, Hindu, Russian for the developing BRIC economies. However I agree the Joint Applicant Support programme was a complete failure by ICANN, with only ONE application going through evaluation. I am sure others have already identified this problem. A new JAS 2 programme will need to be developed / incorporated within Round 2 application processes and procedures and should, I feel, be added into the Matrix.
Regards,
Phil
Phil Buckingham CEO, Dot Advice Limited Corporate Advisor, MultiLingual Internet Group Inc.
From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 18 March 2015 17:52 To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary
Hi,
I agree one aspect of the Global Public Interest (GPI0 in one way of understanding GPI was indeed served as you describe below. The issue is that the GPI is broader than that and is something that needs specific work and specific focus.
Both in understanding it in respect to gTLDs and knowing how to take it into account in subsequent 'rounds'.
I believe it is a top level issue that needs to dealt with in many respects.
avri
On 18-Mar-15 13:17, Bret Fausett wrote:
Avri,
I¹m 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 ³developing countries² under either the UN or IMF definitions. To me, that¹s a global public interest that was served.
Now, I don¹t 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 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@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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>