Dear Anne, In 3) you write: “Re a ‘geo’ priority round for governments”! I am pretty sure that the majority of GEO applications will NOT (and should not) be submitted by entities controlled or owned by “Governments”. Much the same way as telecommunication providers are usually NOT be operated by Governments (or Government owned, controlled entities). “.de” is NOT controlled by the German Government. “.berlin” is NOT controlled by the Berlin City Government either. And why would anybody WANT such control? Especially in the United States neither State nor the Federal Government(s) should control ANYTHING. By making statements like yours we are kind of ASKING for “Government control” – where no Government is really even ASKING for having such control – or worse: Ownership! Governments want to make sure that the geo-TLD operator is keeping up to certain standards – and the Government wants to have a word in the SELECTION of such provider; but not being the applicant or registry operator itself. 4) “Underserved Regions”: Unless we get a real grip on defining those regions; and preventing “abuse”; I am urging to be careful here! If “Underserved regions” are prioritized: does that mean portfolio applicants just need to move from the “usual tax havens” to those tax havens that are in “underserved regions”? Instead of applications FROM “underserved regions” we should rather prioritize applications that SERVE “underserved regions”. So the application would have to be in a local language, or for a locality (city) in that region. The location of the applicant entity itself should be irrelevant in that respect: We don’t have the mission to “create jobs” in certain regions – but to “serve them”. Or am I terrible insensitive here? Thanks, Alexander From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:26 PM To: Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan Speaking personally (and not on behalf of the IPC or anyone else), I think the Neustar proposal was just that – a proposal to be considered and discussed by the full Working Group. I don’t think there was any attempt at all by Neustar to circumvent that process. In the interest of continuing that discussion (and taking into account the letter from AFRALO/AfrICANN), I personally believe the full Working Group should seriously consider fostering good will for the new gTLD program generally by giving a priority application window (or windows) to 1. Brand applications 2. Bona fide Community applications - (easier to have a window than to put these in a contention set with applications that are not community based and rely solely on CPE) 3. Geo applications by government entities (in partnership with private entities if desired) – to be defined by Work Track 5 (with public comment). 4. IDNs and Applications from Underserved Regions (in partnership with private entities if desired) Advantages to this Approach: 1. Permitting a brand application window first may calm a lot of the discussion about country-by-country legislation to address consumer protection in light of restraints imposed by the GDPR. This is because brands could elect to operate their own TLD and advise consumers that the brand TLD is the only way to reach genuine product and/or links to sellers of genuine product. This concern is real as evidenced by the attached letter from the US Dept of Commerce to ICANN. 2. Permitting a priority round for Community applications would mean that unless the community criteria are somehow not met, the program will be promoting free expression for new gTLD applicants (a goal of the program) and serving a public good. Here there will be an opportunity to correct/address issues that arose in the last round. 3. Re a “geo” priority round for governments (and their private sector partners if desired), this will also address complaints from the 2012 round. 4. IDNs and Underserved Region applications (and their private sector partners if desired) – again this gives ICANN the opportunity to express concern for the Global Public Interest and accessibility for all Internet users worldwide Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 10:41 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan [EXTERNAL] _____ I believe there was also a suggestion by Kathy Kleiman in Kobe that some form of triage could be carried out on all applications with a view to identifying contention sets and those could be set aside while the other applications are processed in an arrangement similar to that posed in the Neustar proposal. Kathy, I don’t want to misrepresent your idea, so please correct me if I have this wrong. I think Kathy’s suggestion would mean that there would be a single application window, but the concept of a phased process for evaluation may still be workable, once contention sets are set aside. Donna From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 5:21 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan Dear Rubens, Absolutely: We have defined a number of silos like “brand”, “geo”, “generic”, etc. The applications in each silo are NOT “unique”; there will be overlapping! We cannot stifle contention and prioritize geo or brand applications over others. However: The Neustar concept can still be utilized to a degree: Have brands and geos putting in their applications – and have those evaluated! This alone will take a year. None of them however can ever be allocated to ONE applicant before the “last group” (generic terms?) have applied for THEIR strings: If there is no contention with the brands and geos: GREAT! Then the already evaluated brand and geo TLDs can be contracted ASAP and go online. Thus resources are freed up for the other applicants. But contention has to be allowed to occur from ALL phases of applications. In theory the brands and geos could even do the “provisional” contracting and testing already: but they won’t go into the zone until the last application window has closed and no contention has been found. So the day the last window closes hundreds of cities can go live. Brands seem to NEVER go “live” anyway (save .canon and a few others). Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 3:57 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan Although this theme wasn't in WT4 or SGB, I'll explicitly take my leadership hat off just in case. That said, I don't see the community being able to settle on a priority round. Even though Geos and Brands, the ones that asked for this so far, were perceived as the most interesting use cases of the 2012 round, and while I believe it's likely it will be the case again in the next procedure, there are so many potential clashes in the namespace that there will be always someone disgruntled by such priority. One hypothetical would be the association of apple farmers wanting .apple while Apple Computer also wanted .apple*; the AFRALO-AFRICANN letter is yet another example of this. We need to walk together in this case, and that means allowing every possible applicant or possible objector to have their opportunity in the upcoming procedure. While in product management it's typical to prioritise use cases in lieu of others, and a geo/brand round looks pretty much like an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) to me, I don't see how we would bring everyone onboard on this. Rubens * Yes, I know only Apple Computer applied in 2012 and they now own .apple On 9 Apr 2019, at 01:42, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: All, We received the following correspondence today and wanted to make sure that the Working Group was made aware of the statement from AFRALO-AFRICANN. This is being provided for informational purposes and will be incorporated into our discussions as applicable. Best regards, Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA M: +1.202.549.5079 D: +1.703.635.7514 E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.comlaude.com_&d=DwMF...> www.comlaude.com Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__attachment.com_&d=DwMFaQ...> attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Silvia Vivanco < <mailto:silvia.vivanco@icann.org> silvia.vivanco@icann.org> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 8:59 PM To: Jeff Neuman < <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Jeff Neuman < <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com>; <mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com> langdonorr@gmail.com Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff < <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff@atlarge.icann.org>; Mohamed Bashir < <mailto:mbashir@mbash.net> mbashir@mbash.net>; Tijani BEN JEMAA < <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>; Sarah Kiden < <mailto:skiden@gmail.com> skiden@gmail.com>; Seun Ojedeji < <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>; Fatimata com> < <mailto:fsylla@gmail.com> fsylla@gmail.com> Subject: AFRALO-AFRICANN statement - ICANN 64 Kobe, Japan Dear co-chairs of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, On behalf of AFRALO’s Chair Mohamed El Bashir, kindly find attached the AFRALO/AFRICANN Statement “New gTLD Subsequent Procedure: Proposal of Neustar regarding the upcoming round of New gTLDs" which was discussed and approved at the ICANN 64 meeting in Kobe, Japan. Please be so kind to find attached the statement for your consideration. Thank you! Kind regards, Silvia Vivanco Senior Manager, At Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 51-997510935 <Joint AFRALO-AfrICANN meeting Kobe, March 2019-final.pdf>_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
