Hi If we speak only and strictly about business models in the sense how to market and how to monetize the transactions then yes this part is not restricted nor specified by ICANN nor any of the sub organisations. But leaving that aside ICANN dictates great deal on how one can and must run a *gTLD (what data to collect how to verify the data and contacts, where and how to store the data etc) furthermore the city government has almost no control over how the city geo gTLD is run, marketed or used unless it operates the TLD it self. The letter of non-objection works as one time sign-off. If the winner of the "beauty contest" decides not to act according to their initial sales pitch - i do not see on what grounds could the city government request ICANN to stop the delegation or re-delegate it to another entity. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here by pointing me to correct regulation. Best Regards Timo Võhmar Estonian Internet Foundation On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 12:14 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi,
Per request of Jeff I am sending this answer to the WT5 email address!
I think we are mixing up stuff here. Nobody (especially not the gNSO or ICANN) wants or can “dictate” anybody how to operate a city gTLD applicant/registry – with the (implied) sole exception of the city government that has to grant the letter of non-objection.
And that is the beauty of the chosen approval model: not ICANN decides who shall operate a city-gTLD but the representatives of the city; on the basis of the operation model brought forward by the applicant. In fact this is the old fashioned “beauty contest” – but outsourced to the city government! And that makes sense: you want that the city is evaluating the model and choses the one that is in the best interest of the CITY – not that some backroom auction winner takes over the city’s online identity.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Wednesday, January 03, 2018 3:36 AM *To:* Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; theo geurts < gtheo@xs4all.nl>; Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
Thanks Michele, Theo, Kavouss, Vanda and Christopher.
Seems like we have a cross over of issues here between the overall group and the new Work Track 5. I would encourage overall discussions on business models to stay within this mailing list, but remove any issues on geographic names to Work Track 5 when we get into the substance.
Thus, the issue of whether business models of registries in general or within some “categories” of TLDs should be explored here. But whether TLDs that coincide with geographic names should or should not be of a certain business model, should be discussed within Work Track 5.
The reason is not to stifle discussion, but I note that not all of the participants of Work Track 5 are in fact participants in this overall group. I want to make sure that all Work Track 5 participants see all discussions that relate to “geographic names”
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 or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <+1%20703-635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <+1%20202-549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Michele Neylon - Blacknight *Sent:* Tuesday, January 2, 2018 6:37 AM *To:* theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl>; Kavouss Arasteh < kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>; Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
I’d also be quite concerned about dictating the business models of a registry.
Looking at the new TLDs that have launched to date (there are still quite a few that haven’t), the more flexible they are in terms of their business models the better and more sustainable they are.
I also wonder why anyone would think that mandating “non-profit” is viable or what that’s even based on.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of theo geurts <gtheo@xs4all.nl> *Date: *Monday 1 January 2018 at 21:14 *To: *Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl < rubensk@nic.br>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
I think we are overstepping the scope of the WG here. Is this WG going to decide on business models? If that is the case, I think this WG should inform the GNSO and make sure we are within scope.
Thanks,
Theo Geurts
Theo
On 1-1-2018 21:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Dear All,
First of all Happy new years to all .
While I agree with Christopher and Vanda ,in principle , however, this should be further explored and discussed
.
Regards
Kavouss
On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
Vanda,
I believe Katrin and Maxim were disagreeing with Christopher; just for clarity, do you believe that GeoTLDs should be required to be non-profit operations and have registration restrictions (like Christopher suggested) or to not have any of such requirements (like Katrin and Maxim suggested) ?
Rubens
Em 28 de dez de 2017, à(s) 17:52:000, Vanda Scartezini < vanda@scartezini.org> escreveu:
Totally agree with Christopher, the cities in my country are not to intend to be not for profit
Vanda Scartezini
Sent from my iPhone
Sorry for typos
On 28 Dec 2017, at 11:11, Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer@dotzon.com> wrote:
+1
BG, Katrin
DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 <+49%2030%2049802722> Fax: +49 30 49802727 <+49%2030%2049802727> Mobile: +49 173 2019240 <+49%20173%202019240> ohlmer@dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting
DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin
*Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Maxim Alzoba *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 08:05 *An:* lists@christopherwilkinson.eu *Cc:* *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5