Dear DG Members,

Note that “Public Interest Guidance” 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 Jeff’s 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 “public interest” 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.”

Additionally, under section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN is committed to examine “the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice…” 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 don’t 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 “ global public” 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] 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, 

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

 

 

 





_______________________________________________
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

 




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