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
Fax: +49 30 49802727
Mobile: +49 173 2019240
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] 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

 

Dear Cristopher, 

 

I do not think we need to prescribe the form of the entities for GEOs.

 

Legal form of GEO applicant does not have to be non-for profit (it does not work in cases. where  municipal entity decides to run tender, where the highest bidder is allowed

to have a letter of support from the city). Also costs are also the same (except for taxation) for commercial entities.

 

And since municipal entities represent large populations of people (and usually heads of cities are elected),

 they represent public interest in GEOs, and non non-for profits applying for the job.

 

In the cases where the municipal entity acts on it's own as an applicant - they can not be non-for profit and also can not follow

all the text in the RA (after all cities follow national law, which usually is quite prescriptive in the areas of what cities can and can not do).

 

As for Registration Restrictions - not necessary GEOs will use it (they are already limited by the local persons interest (most probably citizens of other areas do not need it)

, and there is no need to make it worse).

 

If an entity can not bear the costs, it does not matter, which legal form was used before it

loses ability to run Registry business, so I am not sure why we need to have two different approaches to the evaluation.

 

 Short list of costs: COI instrument, contracts with ISPs with DDoS protection, rack space for hardware in at least two datacenters, salary for engineers/office, Secondary DNS Anycast cloud services, office rent costs, legal advice cost - talking to ICANN Compliance might need it e.t.c ... or the procurement of all/some of  those services from the backend providers (RSPs).

 

My thinking is that financial model evaluation was more an abstract test then real model used later by Registries, so it is not known if it was useful, and audits of newly created legal entities can not show the future of the entity (though it might be helpful for old ones).

 

In the current round thorough research did not help with predictions of ICANN's actions / lack of actions and I do not think 

that it will help in the next one.

 

 

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)

skype oldfrogger

 

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

 

On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:10, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu wrote:

 

Dear Emily:

 

1.           Re: Potential TLD types/categories

 

It is not clear what is meant by ‘carve-out’. Regarding Geo-Names, I consider that they should be generally Not for Profit, in the public interests in the areas that they serve. They would normally have Registration Restrictions, for instance, location based.

 

Regarding evaluation criteria, I consider that much more stringent economic considerations should be applied generally to ‘for profit’ proposals. This is not a ‘carve-out’ but a general requirement.

 

2.           Framework of Predictability:       I recall that during the previous round, a source of ‘unpredictability’ was the lack of understanding by applicants of the policy context with which they were engaging at local, national and international level.  For applicants to reduce unpredictability, I would recommend much more thorough research  before applying.

 

In this context, the use of the word ‘generic’ is increasingly misleading. We should avoid any suggestion that the default is ‘generic’ and that anything else is a ‘carve-out’.

On the contrary, nearly all categories show specific characteristics of their own. These are not ‘carve outs’ but rather distinct categories.

 

Regards

 

Christopher Wilkinson

 

 

 

On 21 Dec 2017, at 20:18, Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org> wrote:

 

Dear Working Group members,

 

On the 11 December Working Group call, the co-chairs invited Working Group members to provide input on two items over the mailing list. This note serves as a reminder of the issues for which they are seeking comments. 

 

On the call, the WG reviewed the status of conversations regarding potential TLD types/categories for subsequent procedures (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=0). Your input is encouraged on the following questions:

 

• Is it critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types? If so, what are the pros/cons for carving out specific mechanisms to accommodate any of the proposed types?
• If there are critical exceptions needed for any of the proposed types, please help identify what they might be (e.g., applicant eligibility criteria, evaluation criteria/process, contractual requirements, etc.).

 

The WG touched briefly on the Framework for Predictability (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lzXxBLMtFr03BKnHsa-Ss7kR7EAJt7pCI1EP3H81tfQ/edit#heading=h.8pcr95hvmmz), which is intended to balance ICANN Org’s ability to operate in an effective manner while ensuring the community is properly consulted when issues arise. Your input is requested on the following:  




• What are some use cases we can apply against the framework to test how it would work in practice?

 

For background, please see the attached slides for the call. In order to help the Working Group progress deliberations on this topic, please share your thoughts on the mailing list prior to the next full Working Group call on 8 January 2018.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas@icann.org>
Date: Monday 11 December 2017 at 12:11
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group - 11 December 2017

 

Dear Working Group members,

 

Please find below notes and action items from the call today.  These high-level notes are designed to help Working Group members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat transcript or the recording. The call recording, call transcript, and chat transcript will soon be available here:https://community.icann.org/x/SQxyB[community.icann.org]. 

 

Some excerpts from the chat room are included in the notes. Please see the chat transcript for a full record of chat comments.

 

Slides are attached for reference.

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

 

ACTION ITEM: Co-Chairs will contact Ombudsman regarding concerns raised on this call.

 

1. SOI Updates

- no updates

2. Work Track Updates

- Work Track 1 - next call on 19 Dec will cover systems, communications, and application queuing

- Work Track 2 - There was a WT2 call last week which covered Contractual Compliance and TLD Rollout and CC2 comments on these topics. The next call is 21 December - the call will focus on reviewing strawman recommendations prepared by the co-leads.

- Work Track 3 - Next meeting is on 12 December at 15:00 UTC. WT3 will discuss Community Applications and Objections.

- Work Track 4 - Next meeting will be 14 December at 3:00 UTC. The call will focus on the applicant reviews with a focus on applicant financial models. 

- Work Track 5 - WT5 had a meeting last Wednesday in which it discussed the Terms of Reference. In the next meeting on 20 December, the WT will do a second reading on the TOR document.

- Some GAC members were surprised by the response to the GAC conditions for participation in WT5. The GAC may provide a response on this issue.

- Request to return to issue of participation model contained in the Terms of Reference on the upcoming call.

- Additional work will need to be done to come to agreement on the Terms of Reference.

- There is a single Chartering Organization in the PDP, which is the GNSO. Measures have been put into place to ensure that all voices are heard in WT5. 

Chat excerpt:

kavouss Arasteh: I do not agree with your conclusions

kavouss Arasteh: The issue of Georaphic name isc much beyound the leadership of GNSO

kavouss Arasteh: The issue is disagreement on whether PDP is relevant here 

kavouss Arasteh: There seems to be that our concerns are not heard

Greg Shatan: This is a GNSO PDP Working Group. That is a fundamental fact.  The issue of gTLD policy is the raisin d’etre for the GNSO.

kavouss Arasteh: It is a cross community issue and not GNSO issue

Greg Shatan: That is certainly your opinion, and thank you for your personal views.

kavouss Arasteh: I am speaking from my own side here

Robin Gross: We need to follow the rules, not break them in order to privilege one of the groups that isn't happy with them.

kavouss Arasteh: WHAT Rules Dear Mdam

kavouss Arasteh: MADAM'

Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): in any case GEO TLDs had to obtain letter of approval from the relevant local/federal governmental body

Greg Shatan: Robin, we don’t know that any group is asking for that. Only a single member of a group.

Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): or letter of non objection from the same governmental body

kavouss Arasteh: It is not surprising that you want the domination of GNSO with its PDP Rules to be applied to Geographic names

Steve Chan: As referenced by Cheryl, GNSO Operating Procedures, which are inclusive of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines and PDP Manual: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]

kavouss Arasteh: Geographic names are not the property of any group. It belongs to the citizen of all countries

Greg Shatan: Cheryl is a member of ALAC. Not sure how that contributes to anyone’s lack of surprise.

Martin Sutton: @ Kavous - the GNSO is the vehicle for addressing the policy issue but allows all to be involved. All concerns and views are taken into consideration. Ultimately, all of the 4 leading groups and other advisory groups will have further opportunities to comment on any output from WT5.  

Greg Shatan: Kavouss, your personal views on that matter have been amply stated and heard.

kavouss Arasteh: Dear Greg, we have difference of view in that subject

- The unique nature of WT5 was designed to provide leadership balance in recognition of the importance of this issue in different parts of the community

3. Overarching Issue: Application Types

- Status Quo - Different Types in 2012: Standard application, community-based application, geographic names, specification 13 (.Brand)

Chat excerpt: 

Kurt Pritz: I think we might distinquish between  the policy-based (i.e., in the Guidebook) categories: Community and Geographic; vs thise that were inserted via independent discussion afterward: 

Donna Austin, Neustar: Can we spell out NGPC please for some that weren't around in 2012

Steve Chan: NGPC = New gTLD Program Committee. Thanks Donna for the reminder.

Heather Forrest: I agree that it is sensible to make the distinction that Kurt has raised between community policy-based and independent agreement

kavouss Arasteh: There is no clear description on community

kavouss Arasteh: If there is what is that?

kavouss Arasteh: There is nalso no clear idea on how communities requirements to be compared with each other 

Kurt Pritz: My point earlier was that there is consensus policy on geo and Community categories and no consensus policy on closed generics and brands so the latter  "categories" deseverve more discussion and should not be considered a status quo consensus policy

- Work Track related efforts: WT2 is considering Closed Generics, WT3 is considering Community applications, and WT5 is considering Geographic Names

- On slide 6, AGB section 2.2.1.4.2 is mentioned in the slides, but additional sections of the AGB also address geographic names, and these will also fall within the scope of WT5 discussions. 

Chat excerpt:

kavouss Arasteh: Could one consider drug traffic group as a community?i

Jim Prendergast: While we did have some lenghty disucssions on closed generics in WT2, there is still some healthy oppostion to the concept so I dont know how settled that issue is.

Robin Gross: I suppose a pharmacy group could apply as a community.

kavouss Arasteh: Those issues were written some 10 years ago and situation has changed drastically

Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): AGB might change as result f some PDP work

Marc Palau: What about family names? that's not an strict community

Marc Palau: like .kim

Steve Chan: @Kavouss, the description of the AGB was to set the stage and to identify what took place in the 2012 round. As Maxim notes, things can change in the future as a result of the work of this PDP.

Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): it might depend on wealth of the family 

Greg Shatan: @Maxim, exactly; that is why this PDP exists....

kavouss Arasteh: Dear Colleagues, I am eligible to raise questions without being criticized or repressed is it not so?

avri doria: Aren't there also other conditions in the AGB against crimminal behaviors and activities?

kavouss Arasteh: We need to revisit the definition of community and revist various categories of communioties as they are not having the same conditions

Maxim Alzoba  (FAITID ): I think GAC advise might play it's role irto prevent such bad actor's communities

kavouss Arasteh: As soon as we raise a legitimate question , an valanch of disagreement comes up without giving a convincing argument

- Work Track 3 is still working to define community. One thing we can say confidently is that however we define community, it will need to be in support of the public interest. 

- There are conditions in the AGB against criminal activities. 

- If there is no consensus on recommendations for change in this PDP, the status quo remains.

- Review of attributes for current application types.

- Null Hypothesis: If we changed nothing in the approach to categories in the AGB for Subsequent Procedures, would there be a problem?

- We may not need new categories, but there may need to be tweaks to the AGB regarding the relevant sections of the guidebook

- .Brands are not in consensus policy, for example, so we would need to tidy that up. Discussions on Closed Generics are still underway.

Chat excerpt:

Kurt Pritz: If we change nothing in the Guidebook, there are no brand TLDs and no restrictions on closed generics - there is no consensus policies on these

Greg Shatan: @Kurt, why would keeping the status quo AGB result in changes in implementation?

Greg Shatan: We can add those to consensus policy, but the lack of consensus policy doesn’t roll back implementation.

- . Brands are not covered in previous policy, so we would need to work that into future application processes

Chat excerpt:

Kurt Pritz: @ Greg: Are you advocating that the GB remail silent on Brands and closed generics but conducting the round in the same way?

Kurt Pritz: I agree with Martin - the next round must encourage innovation by developing a flexible approach to accommodating new models

Kurt Pritz: I think categorization is rigid and exclusionary (is that a word)

Martin Sutton: Good point Donna - I agree that innovation should not be stifled through categorisation where it is not needed

Christopher Wilkinson: @AGB It is already clear that the definition of Geo-Names and associated decision making policies will have to evolve

- It is important to reflect on what we witnessed in the 2012 Round. We cannot predict everything. For any new types that emerge, there will be an opportunity to evolve the system, but it is difficult to predict this now.

- We should also include generic as a category. It is intentionally broad. There were some things that happened after the application process closed that had an impact, and additional restrictions put in place following GAC Advice. There was no harm done by not having additional categories. 

- The GAC Advice could have been viewed as restrictive and reduced innovation

- If we create too many rules or parameters around categories, we could further stifle innovation. We don't want to do that.

-Slide 12: Preliminary List of Types (beyond existing)

 - Wouldn't it possible to address differences in different applications through specifications to the base agreement rather than creating categories, since these categories may have overlapping requirements. This seems to be a simpler approach. Are there any issues with this approach?

Chat excerpt: 

Robin Gross: 4 seems to lump two different groups together.  Highly regulated industries have nothing to do with words that others may be "sensitive" to hearing.

Steve Chan: @Robin, I believe that lumping together carries from GAC Advice. That of course would not prevent this WG from decoupling the two types.

Robin Gross: Thanks, Steve.  I think we wouldn't want to lump them together.

Kurt Pritz: With regards to status quo and Cheryl’s mantra that if we don’t arrive at a consensus for change, we are left to the stars quo: we don’t have a policy on brands and closed generics and they are not in the Guidebook. It is not that I am against Brand TLDs, it is that I think the accommodations provided brands could also be afforded that don’t own trademarks but that deserve and need them for there business model. This should be discussed as a consensus policy

- Agree that there may be different applications that warrant different provisions that might not upset the existing policy. It is possible to provide accommodations as needed for applications where it is appropriate. 

Chat excerpt: 

kavouss Arasteh: I am referring to decision making process in Geo Names

kavouss Arasteh: Is there any hope that such concerns be addressed?

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Kavouss, it would be great if you could give the process a chance. 

Annebeth Lange,WT5: The problem, Kavouss, as I see it, is that GNSO, according to the bylaws of ICANN. is responsible for the new gTLD policy. So how to have a "true" cross community PDP, I am not sure how we can achieve this under the present bylaws. However, we should try to trust the process and see what can be achieved.

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, WT5 is a pro-active attempt to have a true cross community PDP and it is truly appreciated that the SO/ACs have responded positively to the request to participate.

Annebeth Lange,WT5: *Donna, I agree. However, even if that is what is the intention, still many do not feel that it is a "true" CCWG. I trust the process, but there is still a feeling of "someone matters more than others" out there, unfortunately.

Donna Austin, Neustar: @Annebeth, appreciate your thoughts and hopefully we can work together to dispell the myths. 

- One of the challenges is that there are 8 potential types of TLDs in the slides, and there would be more with geo, communities, and brands. If you develop different policies for each type, the administration will be significant. It will be harder to move through the process in a streamlined manner. It is also difficult on the backend for contractual compliance. Should the group consider the value, what are we trying to achieve, and what the potential impact will be.

- The hope is that the full group conversation will provide additional input to the WTs that are considering some of the questions around categorization

- Future Application Types - Potential Attributes (slide 13)

- Attributes Matrix (slides 14, 15, 16)

- Pros and Cons of categorization in general (slide 17)

- Homework (slide 18): Share on the list if you believe it is critical to carve out exceptions for some of the identified types. WG members can help to identify pros/cons for specific proposed types and identify critical exceptions for specific proposed types

- More homework (slide 20): WG members are encouraged to prposed use cases to test the predictability framework. 

. AOB

- none

 

 

Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist

ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

 

<Application Types_11Dec2017 v3.pdf>_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg