Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix

April 9, 2015

      I fully agree and tried to make that comment in my response. Might have 
gotten lost as it is below my signature ,-)

Volker

Am 09.04.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Jeff Neuman:
...
All,
These are really great conversations on the substance of the 
particular issues, but I just wanted to remind everyone that our 
limited job here is to identify the issues (which I think we have 
done) and make sure they are represented in the issue matrix.  We 
would love to have all of those comments in ASAP along with comments 
on the executive summary and other docs that were forwarded around.
Best regards,
Jeff
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org 
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann
*Sent:* Thursday, April 9, 2015 11:29 AM
*To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the Executive 
Summary and gTLD Matrix
Hi Alain,
I fear I agree that this would probably be seen as anti-competitive as 
it would exclude those applicants looking to spread the risk and cost 
over as many TLDs as possible. Maybe a merit-based grading system of 
contested applications would actually solve this problem much better 
as large protfolio applicants would face a disadvantage in crafting 
individual and tailored registration policies and applications as 
opposed to boutique applicants.
Best,
Volker
Anyway, in the current round, big players and speculators have too
    much influence on the rules and impact public interest in a
    negative way… This has to be addressed one way or another.
Actually, this conclusion would have to be proven. While many view 
certain issues as detrimental (as do I), there may not be an actual 
harm outweighing potential benefits. I would hesitate to assign 
judgement on any potential issue at this time. That would follow in 
the later review and analysis.
Regards
Alain
*Alain ARTERO*
    TLDs project manager .radio
*EBU *
    OPERATING EUROVISION AND EURORADIO
*EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION
    *L’Ancienne-Route 17A
    1218 Le Grand-Saconnex
    Geneva, Switzerland
T  +41(0)22 717 21 58
    www.eurovision.com <http://www.eurovision.com/>
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org
    <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>
    [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Volker
    Greimann
    *Sent:* jeudi 9 avril 2015 16:11
    *To:* gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>
    *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the
    Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Instead of capping the number of applications any entity can make,
    it might be helpful to ensure a system to resolve contention sets
    in a different manner than in the current round. A continuation of
    the current auction model might lead to gaming as well, where
    parties with no interest in running a TLD could feel encouraged to
    take a chance at the post-private-auction payout.
In any case, a cap on applications by any one entity is easily
    circumventable by creating holding companies for each application.
Volker
Am 07.04.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Michael
Would the same issue arise if each entity was limited to one
        application each?
Though I tend to agree with your idea of “weighting” as being
        more useful and less likely to be either “gamed” or simply
        circumvented
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Domains
http://www.blacknight.host/
http://www.blacknight.press/ - get all our latest media
        releases & coverage
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://www.technology.ie/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside
        Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org
        <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>
        [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of
        *Michael D. Palage
        *Sent:* Thursday, April 2, 2015 5:42 PM
        *To:* 'Tijani BEN JEMAA'; avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>;
        gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>
        *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the
        Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Hello All,
Not to sound like a lawyer, but here goes.  Attempting to
        restrict the number of applications an applicant can file is
        fraught with significant anti-trust considerations and is
        really a non-starter. Or more simply stated there is no way
        Joe Simms would sign-off on this limitation, especially if
        ICANN achieves its independent from the USG in the near future.
I think the more constructive (and viable) approach is to
        focus on the weighing of community applications and potential
        alternate resolution option in connection with contention
        sets.  This is where I think ICANN really missed the mark in
        connection with this round with a number of community /
        community like applications being held hostage or eliminated
        by deep pocket portfolio applicants.
This imbalance in ICANN’s most current round is something that
        I foreshadowed over 4 years ago, see
        http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_gtld_auctions_and_potential_unintended_con...
         I would appreciate if anyone things a part of the solution to
        our problems, can be found in my article from over 4 years ago.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:*gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org
        <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org>
        [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of
        *Tijani BEN JEMAA
        *Sent:* Wednesday, April 1, 2015 2:06 PM
        *To:* avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>;
        gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org>
        *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Fwd: RE: [] Comments to the
        Executive Summary and gTLD Matrix
Avri,
GENERAL THOUGHT ON GTLD NEW ROUND
1. Put a ceiling to the applications submitted by a single
        group (group and not company, because we have seen Afilias and
        M & M using subsidiaries or other signposts...
This because the slate applications create war machines where
        the economy of scale makes irrelevant if not convenient to use
        all degrees of possibles claims just to filibustering
        competitors;
Agree
2. Create for community based applications‎ some simple rules
        as was made for geo names. The clarity and simplicity of the
        rules for geo names, discourage the vultures (not all of them)
        to apply for geo names when the appropriate legal entities
        applied. The unclarity of the rules for the other non-geo
        communities pushed many gTLD to defy community based similar
        strings. In most of the case they were right in doing so.
For instance for sector where exist associations recognized at
        regional level (such as .bank, insurance, lawyers, etc.) this
        give a legitimacy as a community, even if such associations
        don't exist in all continents.
For "political" and "civil liberties" associations the
        criteria of geographic coverage need to be lifted and adapted
        to existing situation. Asking. Gay to be supported in
        countries where still homosexuality is a crime is an evident
        nonsense.
While I agree with you, I find it not enough for 2 reasons:
·For poor community, we don’t have only to protect their right
        of having their own string, but we need to find the right way
        to support them in their application, exactly like we must do
        for applications from developing economies (think of the Tamil
        community who want to have their string to promote their
        language and their culture)
·Community based applications were not assessed against clear
        and objective criteria. The mechanism by which the assessment
        was made should be reviewed. Sure, there should be guaranties
        that the process will not be gamed, but there must be
        guaranties that the assessment will be done in a fair and
        objective manner.
3. Clear criteria to create positive discrimination for
        developing countries and poorer regions of the world ‎.
Any application that is expression or get support from LDC and
        underdeveloped regions need to receive an incentive and a
        priority. If this will not happen, even the next round will be
        characterized by a predominance of the western applicants. Of
        course the support have to be expressed by real and existing
        bodies, not from mirror entities of multinationals or local
        offices of Western companies….
There was proposals for dedicating the upcoming round for
        developing economies and poor communities. I think it was a
        fair proposal because the competition between those applicants
        and the northern one can’t be fair because they don’t have the
        same tools. It is a kind of positive discrimination
If not a dedicated round, I would propose specific conditions
        and rules for developing economies and poor communities, for
        example:
·Since the program development cost was recovered, I think
        that this kind of application should be free of charge
        (remember that we was told when we were fighting for lowering
        the application fee for the first round: “they have to wait
        for the upcoming round when we will recover the program
        developing cost”).
·An accompanying support program should be developed to help
        these applicants at all levels (we need to work on it deeply)
4. Clear rules against filibustering
Norms need to be issued to prevent the abuse of dominant
        position. Those that make opposition without solid ground and
        multiple opposition to any competitor and that loose the
        claims need to be penalized. For instance imposing a growing
        deposits of sums in case of multiple oppositions that will be
        lost in case of defeat.
At the moment to go into RfR, CEP, IRP cost a fortune only to
        those that don’t have a permanent staff of lawyers under
        contract. For these latter, at a marginal cost, they could
        blackmail everybody oppose them.
Agree
5. Protections for the weaker subjects in case of dispute
Because of the disparity of forces, it is absolutely unfair to
        have disputes opposing self-funded voluntary based
        organization (such as .gay) to DOT.companies. ICANN needs to
        set aside a fund or a group of experts to assists the weaker
        subjects when they have to oppose this kind of adversary. A
        sort of asymmetric treatment need be established: lesser fees,
        no deposit, and other measure to ensure equality of chances
        also to the poorer and farer from Californians beaches…
Agree
6. Clear rules to preserve democracy within ICANN
Having accepted that 3 companies specialized in DOT.economy
        could apply for hundreds of TLDs risk to have a longlasting
        effects on the democratic process within ICANN. How to prevent
        that the Big  3 or 5 take over the whole gNSO constituency
        (achieving a practical possibility of veto of any decisions of
        ICANN they dislike or that could hamper their interests ?
Absolutely
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION ON CPE
‎A. The attribution of the points is very much questionable
        and too much left to the discretion of the evaluators;
B. The selection of the body in charge of the CPE needs to be
        made taking in account the specificity of the scope. Ask the
        EIU to judge about community is like asking a carnivore to
        judge about the best vegetarian dish.
If the scope is to evaluate ‎communities, then ICANN has to
        ask to association on NGOS or of Charity funds or to UN bodies
        in charge of humanitarian issues, because they can understand
        the representativity of the applicants, its relations with the
        territorial entities, and so on;
C. the minimum score of 14 points out of sixteen is a total
        nonsense. There is no reason to have such a high score to be
        recognized as a community. The natural suspect is that the bar
        has been put so high to boycott the community applicants and
        to keep them out of the door.
D. The decisions about the future TLD’s round concerning
        communities need to be established in partnership with the
        community TLDs. Their interest cannot be represented by RySG
        that is mainly populated by people that pursue a totally
        different scope: to make money out of it
E. The impossibility to contact the evaluator has left grey
        areas where mistakes could happen. We had no possibility to
        verify who (among the supporting organizations) has been
        called and who was not. There was no way to communicate
        changes of names (the responsible people change within
        democratically elected bodies) of the person to contact within
        the supporting organizations. ICANN has to create a special
        task force that could act as go between the future EIU and the
        applicants
F. Has to be made clear if the evaluator has to verify EACH
        letter of support (as it seems from the guidelines) or if it
        can go only checking some samplers…
I agree on all your points about the specific consideration on CPE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image removed by sender. <http://www.avast.com/>
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel
        malveillant parce que la protection Antivirus avast!
        <http://www.avast.com/>est active.
_______________________________________________
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
    *This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
    intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
    they are addressed. *
    *If you have received this email in error, please notify the
    system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email
    message has been swept by the mailgateway*
    *************************************************** **
_______________________________________________
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.
-- 
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.

Volker Greimann

tags

participants (1)