- Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary
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
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 2^nd 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Hey Avri, for this the "public interest" will probably also have to be defined. And even if a TLD is determined not to have served the public interest, would that necessarily be a negative? -It may be an idea whose time has not yet come, i.e. which may pick up speed later on. -It may be only interested in serving a small, particular interest, not the public interest. -It it may have just been marketed correctly to the right target audience. I think it will be very hard to measure success or failure of a TLD without looking exactly at what that TLD set out to achieve and how these expectations have been met. While many public interest goals are certainly worth pursuing, if the TLD was not intended to further these goals, it will probably have no effect for them. For example, I see no benefit in .luxury for poor communities. Most developing economies will probably not have any touching points with geoTLDs half a world away. And so on. Best, VG Am 18.03.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Avri Doria:
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 2^nd 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi, I agree that defining global public interest (GPI) will be an issue, not one I think we necessarily need to resolve before asking for the issues report. And I think some of the competition evalautuon will feed into that as part of the GPI evaluation. But especially since the global public Interest issue is strategic to ICANN we really need to tackle it going forward. avri On 18-Mar-15 12:30, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hey Avri,
for this the "public interest" will probably also have to be defined. And even if a TLD is determined not to have served the public interest, would that necessarily be a negative?
-It may be an idea whose time has not yet come, i.e. which may pick up speed later on. -It may be only interested in serving a small, particular interest, not the public interest. -It it may have just been marketed correctly to the right target audience.
I think it will be very hard to measure success or failure of a TLD without looking exactly at what that TLD set out to achieve and how these expectations have been met.
While many public interest goals are certainly worth pursuing, if the TLD was not intended to further these goals, it will probably have no effect for them.
For example, I see no benefit in .luxury for poor communities. Most developing economies will probably not have any touching points with geoTLDs half a world away. And so on.
Best,
VG
Am 18.03.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Avri Doria:
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 2^nd 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ 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. http://www.avast.com
Avri, Can you take your comments and incorporate them as questions in the matrix and assign them to one of the five groupings. My assumption would be in the first grouping, but will leave it to you to recommend. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:46 AM To: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary Hi, I agree that defining global public interest (GPI) will be an issue, not one I think we necessarily need to resolve before asking for the issues report. And I think some of the competition evalautuon will feed into that as part of the GPI evaluation. But especially since the global public Interest issue is strategic to ICANN we really need to tackle it going forward. avri On 18-Mar-15 12:30, Volker Greimann wrote: Hey Avri, for this the "public interest" will probably also have to be defined. And even if a TLD is determined not to have served the public interest, would that necessarily be a negative? -It may be an idea whose time has not yet come, i.e. which may pick up speed later on. -It may be only interested in serving a small, particular interest, not the public interest. -It it may have just been marketed correctly to the right target audience. I think it will be very hard to measure success or failure of a TLD without looking exactly at what that TLD set out to achieve and how these expectations have been met. While many public interest goals are certainly worth pursuing, if the TLD was not intended to further these goals, it will probably have no effect for them. For example, I see no benefit in .luxury for poor communities. Most developing economies will probably not have any touching points with geoTLDs half a world away. And so on. Best, VG Am 18.03.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Avri Doria: 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 <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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<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<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]<http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com/>
Hi, My point is that I do think they fit into the groupings you have and that GPI, including the issues of developing economies and poor communities, is a grouping of its own on a par with the others. avri On 18-Mar-15 13:50, Jeff Neuman wrote:
Avri,
Can you take your comments and incorporate them as questions in the matrix and assign them to one of the five groupings. My assumption would be in the first grouping, but will leave it to you to recommend.
Thanks.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2015 10:46 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary
Hi,
I agree that defining global public interest (GPI) will be an issue, not one I think we necessarily need to resolve before asking for the issues report. And I think some of the competition evalautuon will feed into that as part of the GPI evaluation.
But especially since the global public Interest issue is strategic to ICANN we really need to tackle it going forward.
avri
On 18-Mar-15 12:30, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hey Avri,
for this the "public interest" will probably also have to be defined. And even if a TLD is determined not to have served the public interest, would that necessarily be a negative?
-It may be an idea whose time has not yet come, i.e. which may pick up speed later on. -It may be only interested in serving a small, particular interest, not the public interest. -It it may have just been marketed correctly to the right target audience.
I think it will be very hard to measure success or failure of a TLD without looking exactly at what that TLD set out to achieve and how these expectations have been met.
While many public interest goals are certainly worth pursuing, if the TLD was not intended to further these goals, it will probably have no effect for them.
For example, I see no benefit in .luxury for poor communities. Most developing economies will probably not have any touching points with geoTLDs half a world away. And so on.
Best,
VG
Am 18.03.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Avri Doria:
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 2^nd 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto: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 <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Question and clarification: In Column B this is offered as the process for handling contention for strings: * If there is contention for strings, applicants may: o i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe o ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and; o iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels. Does this mean that ICANN will NOT resort to ICANN auctions for strings in contention where there is no resolution within a pre-established time frame? Sam L.
Sam, As there has been no response to your question, I will provide my perspective. The language from Implementation Guideline F below would not appear to dictate the exact method of resolution. As you are aware, the decision to utilize auctions as the method of last resort to resolve string contention was arrived at through community consultation via numerous Applicant Guidebook versions, as well as Explanatory Memoranda specifically related to the resolution of string contention. If this language were to remain unchanged for subsequent New gTLD procedures, it would seem that once again, the exact method of resolution is not being prescribed. I would like to note that within the Issues/Recommendations matrix, the topic of string contention resolution is touched on in relation to Recommendation 2. Assuming that topic were to carry forward to a future PDP, the working group could conceivably expand upon the existing policy language and/or the implementation guidelines to make the method of resolution more prescriptive. Hopefully this helpful. Have a great weekend. Best, Steve From: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:34 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Contention for strings Question and clarification: In Column B this is offered as the process for handling contention for strings: * If there is contention for strings, applicants may:
* i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe * ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and; * iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels. Does this mean that ICANN will NOT resort to ICANN auctions for strings in contention where there is no resolution within a pre-established time frame? Sam L.
Steve, Thank you for your response. I had posed the question because ICANN gTLD auctions are linked to another ICANN issue. That is the potential for ICANN to have funding to assist disadvantaged regions or constituencies with regard to the DNS system at various levels (gTLDs, registries, registrar, etc.). I will offer a short paragraph of my analysis around these two linked issues, gTLD auctions and ICANN funding for "good works". The previous gTLD round discussion produced the option of an ICANN gTLD auction. A small amount of funding was raised and has been set aside while ICANN explores ways of using it. Going forward such funding is unlikely to grow. First, the overall revenue from the new gTLDs has been more modest than hoped for, as diminishing marginal returns have set in. Second, for strings in contention the contenders are resorting to private auctions, where the winner pays the losers, and none of those proceeds accrue to ICANN. The existence of the private auctions appears to make ICANN auctions a moot point, an irrelevant issue, and seriously impacts on any notion of an ICANN "good works" fund. Sam /On 20/03/2015 6:11 PM, Steve Chan wrote:// /
/Sam,/ / / /As there has been no response to your question, I will provide my perspective./ / / /The language from Implementation Guideline F below would not appear to dictate the exact method of resolution. As you are aware, the decision to utilize auctions as the method of last resort to resolve string contention was arrived at through community consultation via numerous Applicant Guidebook versions, as well as Explanatory Memoranda specifically related to the resolution of string contention. If this language were to remain unchanged for subsequent New gTLD procedures, it would seem that once again, the exact method of resolution is not being prescribed./ / / /I would like to note that within the Issues/Recommendations matrix, the topic of string contention resolution is touched on in relation to Recommendation 2. Assuming that topic were to carry forward to a future PDP, the working group could conceivably expand upon the existing policy language and/or the implementation guidelines to make the method of resolution more prescriptive. Hopefully this helpful./ / / /Have a great weekend./ / / /Best,/ /Steve/
From: Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net <mailto:sam@lanfranco.net>> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:34 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Contention for strings
Question and clarification:
In Column B this is offered as the process for handling contention for strings:
* If there is contention for strings, applicants may: o i) resolve contention between them within a pre-established timeframe o ii) if there is no mutual agreement, a claim to support a community by one party will be a reason to award priority to that application. If there is no such claim, and no mutual agreement a process will be put in place to enable efficient resolution of contention and; o iii) the ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using advice from staff and expert panels.
Does this mean that ICANN will NOT resort to ICANN auctions for strings in contention where there is no resolution within a pre-established time frame?
Sam L.
On Mar 22, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote:
Steve,
Thank you for your response. I had posed the question because ICANN gTLD auctions are linked to another ICANN issue. That is the potential for ICANN to have funding to assist disadvantaged regions or constituencies with regard to the DNS system at various levels (gTLDs, registries, registrar, etc.). I will offer a short paragraph of my analysis around these two linked issues, gTLD auctions and ICANN funding for "good works".
The previous gTLD round discussion produced the option of an ICANN gTLD auction. A small amount of funding was raised and has been set aside while ICANN explores ways of using it. Going forward such funding is unlikely to grow. First, the overall revenue from the new gTLDs has been more modest than hoped for, as diminishing marginal returns have set in. Second, for strings in contention the contenders are resorting to private auctions, where the winner pays the losers, and none of those proceeds accrue to ICANN. The existence of the private auctions appears to make ICANN auctions a moot point, an irrelevant issue, and seriously impacts on any notion of an ICANN "good works" fund.
Sam
Although this discussion group is more to raise issues than to solve them, there are 2 specific substance comments applicable here: 1) ICANN can't tie forecast auction revenues to actual commitment to support. So, either ICANN use one round auction revenue to fund good works, either during its ongoing operations or in the next round, or ICANN would need to classify who is more deserving, and then support those or not depending on how much it actually earns. 2) ICANN always classified its auction as a last resort and told applications to preferably sort out contention sets among themselves. The fact that most private solutions usually comes just before the string goes to auction implies that the it actually works towards putting a time pressure on applicants, so they are not irrelevant. Also, if ICANN was to forbid private settlements, there would always be room for collusion since applicants have the necessary information to reach each other. Avoid gaming here would require more changes like not listing who are the applicants, only the number of applicants; on the other hand, that would prevent the community from commenting the applications that would only display the string... I don't see this going towards a way the community would accept it. What I would see as positive for a 2nd round would be knowing the destination of the ICANN auctions money beforehand instead of an unknown process targeted at unknown causes. Rubens
Rubens, Thanks for your additional comments. Here are a couple of comments for clarity. The ICANN Board has commented on the need to have discussion and arrive at a policy with regard to how ICANN would use its existing auction funds. My second comment was simply to note that given current practices (which I don't assess) there are unlikely to be ICANN auctions in the future, so both issues, the possibility of ICANN auctions and the uses of future auction proceeds, are essentially moot points and off any ICANN discussion agenda. Sam L. On 22/03/2015 7:26 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> On Mar 22, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Sam Lanfranco <sam@lanfranco.net> wrote: >> >> Steve, >> >> Thank you for your response. I had posed the question because ICANN gTLD auctions are linked to another ICANN issue. That is the potential for ICANN to have funding to assist disadvantaged regions or constituencies with regard to the DNS system at various levels (gTLDs, registries, registrar, etc.). I will offer a short paragraph of my analysis around these two linked issues, gTLD auctions and ICANN funding for "good works". >> >> The previous gTLD round discussion produced the option of an ICANN gTLD auction. A small amount of funding was raised and has been set aside while ICANN explores ways of using it. Going forward such funding is unlikely to grow. First, the overall revenue from the new gTLDs has been more modest than hoped for, as diminishing marginal returns have set in. Second, for strings in contention the contenders are resorting to private auctions, where the winner pays the losers, and none of those proceeds accrue to ICANN. The existence of the private auctions appears to make ICANN auctions a moot point, an irrelevant issue, and seriously impacts on any notion of an ICANN "good works" fund. >> >> Sam > Although this discussion group is more to raise issues than to solve them, there are 2 specific substance comments applicable here: > 1) ICANN can't tie forecast auction revenues to actual commitment to support. So, either ICANN use one round auction revenue to fund good works, either during its ongoing operations or in the next round, or ICANN would need to classify who is more deserving, and then support those or not depending on how much it actually earns. > > 2) ICANN always classified its auction as a last resort and told applications to preferably sort out contention sets among themselves. The fact that most private solutions usually comes just before the string goes to auction implies that the it actually works towards putting a time pressure on applicants, so they are not irrelevant. Also, if ICANN was to forbid private settlements, there would always be room for collusion since applicants have the necessary information to reach each other. Avoid gaming here would require more changes like not listing who are the applicants, only the number of applicants; on the other hand, that would prevent the community from commenting the applications that would only display the string... I don't see this going towards a way the community would accept it. > > What I would see as positive for a 2nd round would be knowing the destination of the ICANN auctions money beforehand instead of an unknown process targeted at unknown causes. > > > Rubens > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran@Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg <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 <mailto: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 <http://uniregistry.link/>
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 <mailto: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 2^nd 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 <mailto: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. http://www.avast.com
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 _____ <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/>
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 <mailto: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 2^nd 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.avast.com/>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.avast.com/>
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
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/>
Hi Bert, 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. Yes, it allowed people and companies to name themselves online with a label that provides greater semantic meaning, but not all people and companies, only those from the north. The global public interest couldn’t be the interest of a specific kind of people and exclude others. 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. Yes, like the previous situation: the underserved regions and the poor communities register under TLDs of the rich regions; they are good to pay , but not to have their own TLDs for online culture and/or language identity, and also for making business 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. Sorry to say that; but the new gTLD program should really consider to better serve the developing economies and the poor communities. As you said, we already have identified issues regarding this subject, and I hope we will give it the most importance so that the new gTLD program will be serving the global public interest, the diversity and the inclusion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Bret Fausett Envoyé : mercredi 18 mars 2015 18:17 À : gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Objet : Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Issues / Recommendations Matrix and Executive Summary 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 _____ <http://www.avast.com/> Image supprimée par l'expéditeur. 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 --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (9)
-
Avri Doria -
Bret Fausett -
Jeff Neuman -
Phil Buckingham -
Rubens Kuhl -
Sam Lanfranco -
Steve Chan -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Volker Greimann