I support this addition Philip _____ From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Donna Austin Sent: 27 May 2015 22:58 To: Steve Chan; gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Draft Final Deliverables Steve, all My apologies for missing the call on Tuesday, but I have listened to the call and reviewed the documents in your email. I support the documents as drafted; however, I'm not sure that an issue I raised on the list, and subsequently on the recent GNSO Council call, about whether any consideration will be given to the disparity that may result between registry operators from this round and future rounds as a result of substantive changes being made to the program? I have drafted possible language for consideration by the DG for inclusion in the Charter. I do believe this is an important issue flagged to have identified in the Charter. "The WG, during its deliberations, should keep in mind that making substantive changes to the New gTLD Program may result in significant differences between registries from the 2012 round and future rounds. Where significant differences are identified, the WG should discuss the benefits to be realised from recommended changes against any possible negative impacts, such as creating an uneven playing field." Thanks, Donna Description: Description: Description: ARI LogoDONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> donna.austin@ariservices.com W <http://www.ariservices.com/> www.ariservices.com Follow us on <https://twitter.com/ARIservices> Twitter The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2015 6:00 PM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Draft Final Deliverables Dear DG Members, For those that were able to join today's call, thank you for your participation and feedback. I have incorporated the changes discussed on the call, which includes adding specific draft text to the charter related to the global public interest and compliance. I've also integrated recent feedback received to the email list. The executive summary, matrix, and charter have been combined in the single attached document with all changes accepted, and I have added some elements to make the draft more formal. Here is a link to the various iterations of the drafts on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. You will find this latest document at the very top of the page underneath the heading DRAFT Full Deliverables. Please share with your respective groups for their review and feedback if applicable and note, the co-chairs hope to have all comments/suggestions received by 5 June 2015 at the latest. * If after reviewing, you cannot agree to the document as drafted (or simply want to suggest a change), the co-chairs request that you inform the group via the email list as soon as your are able. * If you agree with the document, no action is required, although you are free to and encouraged to note your agreement on the list. Please let me know if you have any questions. 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

Rubens, First, your suggestion that I offered Informed Consent as a solution, and thus jumped the gun, is correct. Should an examination of the city's experiences indicate some negative occurrences, then Informed Consent might be one approach to consider moving forward. But we're clearly not there yet. Our recent FOIL request sought to make some basic data available that would help illuminate the experiences the city is having with its TLD. Our recent Freedom of Information Law request seeks to enable New Yorkers to better assess the experiences from the TLD's development. If we don't know what's going on how can the Discussion Group and GNSO adequately assess "experiences gained." We are seeking WHOIS data (anonymized as necessary) that will help us understand the state of the name distribution process. For example, are names being distributed equitably? Are all social, economic, and geographic clusters acquiring names? If an analysis reveals inequities, should efforts be undertaken to change the current trend? If so, what engagement and education programs might bend the curve? Etc. If fundamental data about allocations, complaints, or other aspects of the TLD's operation are unavailable, a conscientious assessment by the GNSO of the city's experiences with its TLD is impossible. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 5/31/2015 4:10 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:

...

On August 21, 2014 I submitted to the discussion group a comment "Considering Informed Consent for City-TLD Applicants" - see here <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Considering+Informed+Consent+for...>. It urged that a stronger standard than "non-objection" be sought for future city-TLD applicants. The suggestion was that we craft an "informed consent" standard for cities seeking a TLD, and that we draw upon other sectors such as medical and resource management in developing that standard.

In the 26 May report I don't find language adequately representing the suggestion. The only entry that might possibly relate is in Group 1 under "Community engagement." This reader was unclear if the community referenced there was the ICANN or applying community (i.e., city).

Actually, no suggestions of what to do were meant to be present at the report, so the question is whether the issue (not the solution) is there.

...

The mayor's statement was released during a period in which our organization was requesting information about the identity of those who have purchased .nyc names. We are seeking to identify some metrics for assessing the impact .nyc is having on our city. Our request for anonymized registrant data was refused. And last week we were forced to file a request for registrant information using the state's Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).

The core of what you asked is published by .nyc due to ICANN contractual requirements: the zone file describing each name that is registered and DNS servers that in turn point to content for each domain. https://czds.icann.org/ is the entry point for this information. (and in case of .nyc, there is also the possibility of a zone walk-through but CZDS is simpler)

...

It's my belief that, had there been a requirement for informed consent, the city's stakeholders would have participated in developing the application for the .nyc TLD. And from that participation clear metrics for its success would have emerged, and the mayor could have spoken about the success of the TLD using them.

Since .nyc applicant, and now registry, is the city itself (even if under an outsourcing contract), it seems that they had more than just informed consent, they had full authority. The issue you described is that you believe that no matter the standard is a non-objection or an informed consent, that it must come not only from the executive branch but from a multistakeholder representation of the geographic region. Just raising the threshold to informed consent wouldn't be enough to achieve what you are suggesting.

Rubens