- Community Comment 2 Next Steps
Dear WG Members, As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-.... Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs. The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward: · Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard! · The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2. · An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading. Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Hi WG members, in 2.3 (Reserved Names). We in this WG are dealing with the terminology on daily basis – but not everybody we are tasking to provide feedback does. I have seen time after time people confusing the top-level and the second level when it comes to “reserved names”. For the avoidance of doubt I suggest to add for each section whether it pertains the top-level or the second level. Seems all bullet points but 2.3.5 concern top-level strings, only 2.3.5 is related to the 2nd level? In 2.3.3 we ask: “…..should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?”. This seems to be rather unspecific. What is “e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook” be meant to say? 2.2.1.4.1 is the ONLY provision excluding ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names. Why “e.g.”? That suggests there were other provisions. There are not. 2.2.1.4.1 was a placeholder created to postpone the decision how ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names are dealt with. An entire cross community WG spent YEARS to deal with the problem – and came recently up with very little (I am member of it). This can’t be addressed in a side sentence. I suggest the following changes: Current version: “For instance, should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?” Suggested version: For instance, should Country & Territory Names or ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements (as specified in section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook) be allowed within the New gTLD Program? According to the current AG version they would already automatically require government support (2.2.1.4.2 AG). Would that be sufficient or would you suggest additional requirements (e.g. approval by the relevant ccTLD manager or GAC member)? Background: I have observed in WGs and ICANN sessions as well as in personal discussions with ccTLD managers and GAC members that most stakeholders are NOT aware that removing section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook would OF COURSE still require Government support for these strings – as they are all part of the various sections of ISO 3166! Removing 2.2.1.4.1 would NOT result in territory, country names or 3166 Alpha 3 codes being available WITHOUT government support (nor should it in my opinion). Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 3:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Community Comment 2 Next Steps Dear WG Members, As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-.... Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs. The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward: * Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard! * The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2. * An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading. Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> steve.chan@icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> nteractive courses and visiting the <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/
I've just been through the questionnaire for the first, and I have two overall observations. First, as a member of the WG, this still appears to be quite rough for something intended for distribution in two weeks. Second, as a member (and Chair) of a SO/AC/SG/C (IPC), this is going to be an incredibly heavy lift. There are an incredible number of questions and subquestions here, and most should not be answered "off the cuff." It would be better if this were issued in pieces, though I understand how much more useful it will be to us if we have all the answers at the same time. I can't imagine the logistics and the effort involved in getting this done by my constituency on a "massively parallel" basis in any reasonable period of time. Inevitably, many questions will get short shrift in the struggle to get this done. Good luck to all of us! Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi WG members,
in 2.3 (Reserved Names). We in this WG are dealing with the terminology on daily basis – but not everybody we are tasking to provide feedback does. I have seen time after time people confusing the top-level and the second level when it comes to “reserved names”. For the avoidance of doubt I suggest to add for each section whether it pertains the top-level or the second level. Seems all bullet points but 2.3.5 concern top-level strings, only 2.3.5 is related to the 2nd level?
In 2.3.3 we ask: “…..should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?”. This seems to be rather unspecific. What is “e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook” be meant to say? 2.2.1.4.1 is the ONLY provision excluding ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names. Why “e.g.”? That suggests there were other provisions. There are not. 2.2.1.4.1 was a placeholder created to postpone the decision how ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names are dealt with. An entire cross community WG spent YEARS to deal with the problem – and came recently up with very little (I am member of it). This can’t be addressed in a side sentence. I suggest the following changes:
Current version: “*For instance, should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?**”*
Suggested version:
*For instance, should Country **& Territory Names or ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements (as specified in section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook) be allowed within the New gTLD Program? According to the current AG version they would already automatically require government support (2.2.1.4.2 AG). Would that be sufficient or would you suggest additional requirements (e.g. approval by the relevant ccTLD manager or GAC member)?*
Background: I have observed in WGs and ICANN sessions as well as in personal discussions with ccTLD managers and GAC members that most stakeholders are NOT aware that removing section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook would OF COURSE still require Government support for these strings – as they are all part of the various sections of ISO 3166! Removing 2.2.1.4.1 would NOT result in territory, country names or 3166 Alpha 3 codes being available WITHOUT government support (nor should it in my opinion).
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve Chan *Sent:* Friday, February 17, 2017 3:47 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Community Comment 2 Next Steps
Dear WG Members,
As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_ b6-jH2Wl5eVH-WWM/edit?usp=sharing. Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs.
The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward:
· *Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard!*
· The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2.
· An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading.
Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees.
If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <(310)%20339-4410>
office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <(310)%20301-5800>
office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> .
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Understand your views Greg, and we should discuss further, but to release in pieces each with a 40 day comments period would extend this PDP out another 120 days or so. In addition, hopefully there will be some areas which will not need comment by every SO/AC/C etc. I know there is a tendency to want to answer every single question, but I am not sure that every group needs to. But let's continue the discussions on email. Thanks. Sent from my iPad On Feb 20, 2017, at 3:34 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I've just been through the questionnaire for the first, and I have two overall observations. First, as a member of the WG, this still appears to be quite rough for something intended for distribution in two weeks. Second, as a member (and Chair) of a SO/AC/SG/C (IPC), this is going to be an incredibly heavy lift. There are an incredible number of questions and subquestions here, and most should not be answered "off the cuff." It would be better if this were issued in pieces, though I understand how much more useful it will be to us if we have all the answers at the same time. I can't imagine the logistics and the effort involved in getting this done by my constituency on a "massively parallel" basis in any reasonable period of time. Inevitably, many questions will get short shrift in the struggle to get this done. Good luck to all of us! Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi WG members, in 2.3 (Reserved Names). We in this WG are dealing with the terminology on daily basis – but not everybody we are tasking to provide feedback does. I have seen time after time people confusing the top-level and the second level when it comes to “reserved names”. For the avoidance of doubt I suggest to add for each section whether it pertains the top-level or the second level. Seems all bullet points but 2.3.5 concern top-level strings, only 2.3.5 is related to the 2nd level? In 2.3.3 we ask: “…..should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?”. This seems to be rather unspecific. What is “e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook” be meant to say? 2.2.1.4.1 is the ONLY provision excluding ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names. Why “e.g.”? That suggests there were other provisions. There are not. 2.2.1.4.1 was a placeholder created to postpone the decision how ISO 3166 Alpha 3 / territory names are dealt with. An entire cross community WG spent YEARS to deal with the problem – and came recently up with very little (I am member of it). This can’t be addressed in a side sentence. I suggest the following changes: Current version: “For instance, should Country or Territory Names be allowed within the New gTLD Program (e.g., section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook)?” Suggested version: For instance, should Country & Territory Names or ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code elements (as specified in section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook) be allowed within the New gTLD Program? According to the current AG version they would already automatically require government support (2.2.1.4.2 AG). Would that be sufficient or would you suggest additional requirements (e.g. approval by the relevant ccTLD manager or GAC member)? Background: I have observed in WGs and ICANN sessions as well as in personal discussions with ccTLD managers and GAC members that most stakeholders are NOT aware that removing section 2.2.1.4.1 of the Applicant Guidebook would OF COURSE still require Government support for these strings – as they are all part of the various sections of ISO 3166! Removing 2.2.1.4.1 would NOT result in territory, country names or 3166 Alpha 3 codes being available WITHOUT government support (nor should it in my opinion). Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 3:47 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Community Comment 2 Next Steps Dear WG Members, As you probably know, the WG is currently drafting its second request for community comment. The WG co-chairs and co-leaders of the work tracks encourage you to review the draft Community Comment 2 (CC2) questions and make suggestions in the document to amend language, add questions, omit questions, etc. The WG is collaborating via Google Docs, which can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iZBCVEAJPBYEDg7jLsMHKkNczR_b6-jH2Wl5eVH-.... Attached, please find an extract of the questions in Word, for those that are unable to access Google Docs. The intention is to distribute and publish these questions for public comment before ICANN58. To do so, here is the suggested path forward: • Members review and suggest changes. Some WTs may choose to discuss during their meetings, but we hope to conclude this phase on 24 February. Your contributions are critical to ensuring your voice is heard! • The full WG reviews CC2 on 27 February. This will be considered the first reading of CC2. • An additional full WG meeting will be scheduled for 6 March, where CC2 will be reviewed and be considered the second, and presumably final reading. Assuming agreement is reached on the 6 March meeting, CC2 would then be published for public comment, as well as distributed to the chairs of the various Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. If you have any questions, please let staff or the WG leadership know. Best, Steve 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> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1...> The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
As one done year after year this kind of promotion am glad to see this even modest effort come out from ICANN . Improve this participation could be also part of our suggestion to allow the resources available from auction process can generate more and more income to ICANN as a positive feedback. Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPhone Sorry for typos On 2 Apr 2017, at 19:18, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> wrote: Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Kurt What “cash surplus”? Do you mean the auction funds or something else? If you’re talking about the auction funds then those are not a “surplus”. Sure, they’re extra money, but that’s not quite the same thing and to describe the money as such is misleading. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 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-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Sunday 2 April 2017 at 23:16 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "avri@apc.org" <avri@apc.org> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
The cash surplus does not refer to the auction funds but rather to the amount that was left over after the total costs were subtracted from the total application fees. Some of that is a legal reserve (for cases like dotdotafrica, .web and others), but even after that is taken into account, there is a reasonable surplus that should be used in the context of the nGTLD program as the application fees were stated to be on a cost recovery basis. Am 03.04.2017 um 16:55 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Kurt
What “cash surplus”?
Do you mean the auction funds or something else?
If you’re talking about the auction funds then those are not a “surplus”. Sure, they’re extra money, but that’s not quite the same thing and to describe the money as such is misleading.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
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-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> *Date: *Sunday 2 April 2017 at 23:16 *To: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "avri@apc.org" <avri@apc.org> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion
Hi Jeff, Avri, et al:
I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1...
The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.”
In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries.
To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question.
In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this.
However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action.
ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN?
All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this?
Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work.
With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry.
During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created.
My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion.
That recommendation could simply be a statement that it /is / the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry.
We can show that we can act.
Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt@kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>
+1.310.400.4184
Skype: kjpritz
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- 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.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 10:56 AM To: Kurt Pritz; Jeff Neuman; avri@apc.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Kurt What “cash surplus”? Do you mean the auction funds or something else? If you’re talking about the auction funds then those are not a “surplus”. Sure, they’re extra money, but that’s not quite the same thing and to describe the money as such is misleading. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 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-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Date: Sunday 2 April 2017 at 23:16 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>" <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14210 - Release Date: 03/30/17
In regard to this communication from Kurt: The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.”… My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. I have no strong personal view one way or another regarding the suggestion that some portion of the unused application fees should be used to promote universal awareness and acceptance of new gTLDs (the use of last resort auction funds are being focused upon by a separate CCWG). However, I am fairly insistent that PDP WGs stay within the circumscribed boundaries of their Charter authority and not delve into non-authorized areas without seeking consent from Council to amend their Charter. Therefore, I must question whether the suggested sub-team would be within the scope of this WG’s Charter, found at https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21j... Relevant portions of the Charter state; The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (WG) is tasked with calling upon the community’s collective experiences from the 2012 New gTLD Program round to determine what, if any changes may need to be made to the existing Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations from 8 August 2007… those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process… As part of the WG deliberations, the WG should consider at a minimum, the elements below… The list below in this charter is a starting point, and a suggested method of organization, but it is not intended to be exhaustive or impose constraints on this WG on how it operates or the issues it discusses, provided that the issues are directly related to new gTLD subsequent procedures. This WG may need to supplement this list, or reorganize it, to meet the needs of the WG as it moves deeper into the substantive policy discussions. If additional materials topics are identified, the WG should inform the GNSO Council, especially if amendment of this Charter is required. (Emphasis added) The only references to application fees appears in Group 1 – · Application Fees: Evaluate accuracy of cost estimates and/or review the methodology to develop the cost model, while still adhering to the principle of cost recovery. Examine how payment processing can be improved. · Variable Fees: Should the New gTLD application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (e.g., open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, or other factor? Summing up, as I read the Charter, this WG does have authority to make policy recommendations regarding the level of application fees in subsequent rounds, including whether they should vary by application type, and likely also has authority to make recommendations regarding the use and/or return of unused application fees after a time certain from the launch of a subsequent round(s). But I do not see any Charter provision that can be read as providing authority to take a position regarding the use of unused application fees from the first round of new gTLDs, and therefore believe that a Charter amendment would be required to do so.. Best to all (PS—Ignore the blank email I sent a few minutes ago, resulting from a hair trigger mouse ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 10:56 AM To: Kurt Pritz; Jeff Neuman; avri@apc.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Kurt What “cash surplus”? Do you mean the auction funds or something else? If you’re talking about the auction funds then those are not a “surplus”. Sure, they’re extra money, but that’s not quite the same thing and to describe the money as such is misleading. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 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-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> Date: Sunday 2 April 2017 at 23:16 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>" <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14210 - Release Date: 03/30/17
Kurt, To be clear, I am writing this as a member of the WG and not as the ALAC Chair, I do not support your suggestion as I believe that it is FAR out of scope for this WG. If some WG members choose to follow your advice in their personal capacity, that is their business. I also do not agree with your statement "Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work." The only reason I had any support for the new gTLD program was because of IDNs, and since ICANN had no interest in opening a round just for IDNs, I reluctantly supported it (although I believed it was launched before it was ready for prime time). But my general lack of support does NOT imply I wanted it to fail. Linking not supporting the round with wanting it to fail puts those of us who had doubts in a inappropriately bad light. The registry proposal you cite might have been better received if it had not linked it to a significant registry fee reduction. Universal acceptance is worthy of our support. Advertising new gTLDs less so in my mind. If you and the RySG would care to explain the use of the term "seed fund" by explaining where the further contributions were to come from PERHAPS there would be something to discuss. Alan At 02/04/2017 06:16 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote:
Hi Jeff, Avri, et al:
I saw that this has been published. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf
The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: âICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.â
In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANNâs role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries.
To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question.
In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this.
However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action.
ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN?
All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this?
Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work.
With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I donât see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, âwe are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,â to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry.
During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created.
My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion.
That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry.
We can show that we can act.
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:KZvlGkL7E8WPimuu+FxvIxSnlUl3zi71EzIyzsIm7iZ7hANfLa6K5qbjaXRzZUdLQdKP/7QSPxIDNYcp3+wqMZPB5Hz9B/I0onizKmo3ELc1+ZbhLCGLeRuQRIlalgovvmW950njFGZvEQ9FLz/oAQ== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
All, This has been a great discussion on the importance of outreach and awareness. The subject of outreach and awareness for subsequent procedures is certainly within our scope (Work Track 1). However, my gut which I will talk to the rest of the leadership team, is that proposing a policy which would retroactively apply to previously collected funds would be beyond our scope. However, in theory commenting that the $X that ICANN originally committed/spent as part of the “Communications Plan” was insufficient both in terms of dollars and scope is within our mandate. ICANN initially viewed this expenditure as a one-time spend before the 2012, whereas we could (in theory) recommend the establishment of a fund to be used for the purposes of promoting the awareness and acceptance of TLDs. I am not advocating a position here, but just to give my opinion of the types of recommendations we could make if there is a consensus. I will discuss this issue with the rest of the leadership team and give you our collective thoughts later this week. Thanks again and keep these discussions going! 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: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 6:36 PM To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; avri@apc.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Kurt, To be clear, I am writing this as a member of the WG and not as the ALAC Chair, I do not support your suggestion as I believe that it is FAR out of scope for this WG. If some WG members choose to follow your advice in their personal capacity, that is their business. I also do not agree with your statement "Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work." The only reason I had any support for the new gTLD program was because of IDNs, and since ICANN had no interest in opening a round just for IDNs, I reluctantly supported it (although I believed it was launched before it was ready for prime time). But my general lack of support does NOT imply I wanted it to fail. Linking not supporting the round with wanting it to fail puts those of us who had doubts in a inappropriately bad light. The registry proposal you cite might have been better received if it had not linked it to a significant registry fee reduction. Universal acceptance is worthy of our support. Advertising new gTLDs less so in my mind. If you and the RySG would care to explain the use of the term "seed fund" by explaining where the further contributions were to come from PERHAPS there would be something to discuss. Alan At 02/04/2017 06:16 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.†In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,†to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:KZvlGkL7E8WPimuu+FxvIxSnlUl3zi71EzIyzsIm7iZ7hANfLa6K5qbjaXRzZUdLQdKP/7QSPxIDNYcp3+wqMZPB5Hz9B/I0onizKmo3ELc1+ZbhLCGLeRuQRIlalgovvmW950njFGZvEQ9FLz/oAQ== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Thanks Jeff. On the substance, I personally favor ICANN efforts and expenditures to promote universal acceptance as lack thereof creates a technical obstacle to the full and intended use of new gTLDs. And I am open on whether further ICANN funds should be used to promote awareness of new gTLDs generally. My concern is that opining on the use of First Round funds for such purposes in response to a particular request by the RySG is beyond the scope of this WG as set forth in its Charter, and your gut seems to lean that way as well. Thanks for the update and I look forward to further feedback from the leadership team. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 11:42 AM To: Alan Greenberg; Kurt Pritz; avri@apc.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion All, This has been a great discussion on the importance of outreach and awareness. The subject of outreach and awareness for subsequent procedures is certainly within our scope (Work Track 1). However, my gut which I will talk to the rest of the leadership team, is that proposing a policy which would retroactively apply to previously collected funds would be beyond our scope. However, in theory commenting that the $X that ICANN originally committed/spent as part of the “Communications Plan” was insufficient both in terms of dollars and scope is within our mandate. ICANN initially viewed this expenditure as a one-time spend before the 2012, whereas we could (in theory) recommend the establishment of a fund to be used for the purposes of promoting the awareness and acceptance of TLDs. I am not advocating a position here, but just to give my opinion of the types of recommendations we could make if there is a consensus. I will discuss this issue with the rest of the leadership team and give you our collective thoughts later this week. Thanks again and keep these discussions going! 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: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 6:36 PM To: Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Kurt, To be clear, I am writing this as a member of the WG and not as the ALAC Chair, I do not support your suggestion as I believe that it is FAR out of scope for this WG. If some WG members choose to follow your advice in their personal capacity, that is their business. I also do not agree with your statement "Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work." The only reason I had any support for the new gTLD program was because of IDNs, and since ICANN had no interest in opening a round just for IDNs, I reluctantly supported it (although I believed it was launched before it was ready for prime time). But my general lack of support does NOT imply I wanted it to fail. Linking not supporting the round with wanting it to fail puts those of us who had doubts in a inappropriately bad light. The registry proposal you cite might have been better received if it had not linked it to a significant registry fee reduction. Universal acceptance is worthy of our support. Advertising new gTLDs less so in my mind. If you and the RySG would care to explain the use of the term "seed fund" by explaining where the further contributions were to come from PERHAPS there would be something to discuss. Alan At 02/04/2017 06:16 PM, Kurt Pritz wrote: Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-1... The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.†In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,†to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:KZvlGkL7E8WPimuu+FxvIxSnlUl3zi71EzIyzsIm7iZ7hANfLa6K5qbjaXRzZUdLQdKP/7QSPxIDNYcp3+wqMZPB5Hz9B/I0onizKmo3ELc1+ZbhLCGLeRuQRIlalgovvmW950njFGZvEQ9FLz/oAQ== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14210 - Release Date: 03/30/17
Kurt, all I believe ICANN have a responsibility to conduct some type of communication/awareness campaign as it related to new gTLDs under the 2012 round, perhaps not explicitly to promote domain names but certainly to raise awareness about the program. I’m not sure whether this was baked into the 2007 policy or the AGB. I don’t believe this was ever done to anyone’s satisfaction and has been raised with ICANN during the last two GDD Summits as a universal awareness rather than a universal acceptance issue. We had some good interaction on the subject with the Board members present during the Summit in Amsterdam last year. I appreciate that some do not support the idea that ICANN should actively promote domain names, but I do believe that ICANN has a responsibility to inform consumers about the single most important change to the Internet in years. So just like the Australian Government and other governments have run consumer awareness campaigns about the changeover from analog to digital television, ICANN should be responsible for a consumer awareness campaign regarding the introduction of thousands of new TLDs. I have previously suggested this to Akram during interactions with the GDD and the GNSO Council and his response has been that ICANN cannot promote one TLD over another. During the same discussion James Bladel also suggested that ICANN has a responsibility to inform all consumers about any policy changes that have the potential to impact them, referring at the time to changes to verifying WHOIS that had been causing some issues at the time. I guess my question is if this PDP WG is the wrong place, as some suggest, to consider this as a policy issue—what would be the right place? Donna From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 11:17 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; avri@apc.org Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_diaz-2Dto-2Datallah-2Det-2Dal-2D14mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=RTaBqz8dTcB5YLgS72pPgwrf_aISgWznTdJCQLIbsFg&s=sOJAk3oFHL4c3S5yrt0bxrRR8nQrP3y35I-xmZCcVmA&e=> The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
ICANN did a campaign to promote new gTLDs in round one. The problem is that very few saw/understood it. Five years after, new gTLDs start to be understood by those "forced" to deal with them and the still very few to launch a website with them. ICANN has no capacity/knowledge to raise awareness for new gTLDs: registrars have tried for the past 5 years... In fact, no one does. If money is to be spend to raise awareness, I suggest to do it with those who "are" on internet and LinkedIn is a good place for this. On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> wrote:
Kurt, all
I believe ICANN have a responsibility to conduct some type of communication/awareness campaign as it related to new gTLDs under the 2012 round, perhaps not explicitly to promote domain names but certainly to raise awareness about the program. I’m not sure whether this was baked into the 2007 policy or the AGB. I don’t believe this was ever done to anyone’s satisfaction and has been raised with ICANN during the last two GDD Summits as a universal awareness rather than a universal acceptance issue. We had some good interaction on the subject with the Board members present during the Summit in Amsterdam last year.
I appreciate that some do not support the idea that ICANN should actively promote domain names, but I do believe that ICANN has a responsibility to inform consumers about the single most important change to the Internet in years. So just like the Australian Government and other governments have run consumer awareness campaigns about the changeover from analog to digital television, ICANN should be responsible for a consumer awareness campaign regarding the introduction of thousands of new TLDs. I have previously suggested this to Akram during interactions with the GDD and the GNSO Council and his response has been that ICANN cannot promote one TLD over another. During the same discussion James Bladel also suggested that ICANN has a responsibility to inform all consumers about any policy changes that have the potential to impact them, referring at the time to changes to verifying WHOIS that had been causing some issues at the time.
I guess my question is if this PDP WG is the wrong place, as some suggest, to consider this as a policy issue—what would be the right place?
Donna
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz *Sent:* Sunday, April 02, 2017 11:17 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; avri@apc.org *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion
Hi Jeff, Avri, et al:
I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/ correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.”
In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries.
To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question.
In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this.
However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action.
ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN?
All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this?
Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work.
With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry.
During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created.
My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion.
That recommendation could simply be a statement that it *is * the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry.
We can show that we can act.
Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt@kjpritz.com
+1.310.400.4184 <+1%20310-400-4184>
Skype: kjpritz
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- *Jean Guillon* 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France *Phone:* +33.631109837 *Skype & Twitter:* jeanguillon *Web:* www.guillon.com
No. ICANN did a very bad campaign to promote the application window, not the actual domains themselves. I’d also disagree with using LinkedIn for marketing most things – the audience simply isn’t there. It might have been a couple of years ago, but the numbers don’t lie. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 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-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday 4 April 2017 at 17:12 To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion ICANN did a campaign to promote new gTLDs in round one. The problem is that very few saw/understood it. Five years after, new gTLDs start to be understood by those "forced" to deal with them and the still very few to launch a website with them. ICANN has no capacity/knowledge to raise awareness for new gTLDs: registrars have tried for the past 5 years... In fact, no one does. If money is to be spend to raise awareness, I suggest to do it with those who "are" on internet and LinkedIn is a good place for this. On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>> wrote: Kurt, all I believe ICANN have a responsibility to conduct some type of communication/awareness campaign as it related to new gTLDs under the 2012 round, perhaps not explicitly to promote domain names but certainly to raise awareness about the program. I’m not sure whether this was baked into the 2007 policy or the AGB. I don’t believe this was ever done to anyone’s satisfaction and has been raised with ICANN during the last two GDD Summits as a universal awareness rather than a universal acceptance issue. We had some good interaction on the subject with the Board members present during the Summit in Amsterdam last year. I appreciate that some do not support the idea that ICANN should actively promote domain names, but I do believe that ICANN has a responsibility to inform consumers about the single most important change to the Internet in years. So just like the Australian Government and other governments have run consumer awareness campaigns about the changeover from analog to digital television, ICANN should be responsible for a consumer awareness campaign regarding the introduction of thousands of new TLDs. I have previously suggested this to Akram during interactions with the GDD and the GNSO Council and his response has been that ICANN cannot promote one TLD over another. During the same discussion James Bladel also suggested that ICANN has a responsibility to inform all consumers about any policy changes that have the potential to impact them, referring at the time to changes to verifying WHOIS that had been causing some issues at the time. I guess my question is if this PDP WG is the wrong place, as some suggest, to consider this as a policy issue—what would be the right place? Donna From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 11:17 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion Hi Jeff, Avri, et al: I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_diaz-2Dto-2Datallah-2Det-2Dal-2D14mar17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=RTaBqz8dTcB5YLgS72pPgwrf_aISgWznTdJCQLIbsFg&s=sOJAk3oFHL4c3S5yrt0bxrRR8nQrP3y35I-xmZCcVmA&e=> The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.” In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries. To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question. In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this. However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action. ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN? All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this? Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work. With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry. During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created. My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion. That recommendation could simply be a statement that it is the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry. We can show that we can act. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:+1%20310-400-4184> Skype: kjpritz _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com<http://www.guillon.com>
Apologies, I forgot to kindly offer to this WG to join the 2,500+ members of the new gTLD group on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/1840166. Posting about new gTLDs is free and requires just a few clicks. You are all welcome to "raise awareness". :-) On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
No. ICANN did a very bad campaign to promote the application window, not the actual domains themselves.
I’d also disagree with using LinkedIn for marketing most things – the audience simply isn’t there. It might have been a couple of years ago, but the numbers don’t lie.
--
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-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jean Guillon < jean@guillon.com> *Date: *Tuesday 4 April 2017 at 17:12 *To: *"Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion
ICANN did a campaign to promote new gTLDs in round one. The problem is that very few saw/understood it. Five years after, new gTLDs start to be understood by those "forced" to deal with them and the still very few to launch a website with them. ICANN has no capacity/knowledge to raise awareness for new gTLDs: registrars have tried for the past 5 years... In fact, no one does.
If money is to be spend to raise awareness, I suggest to do it with those who "are" on internet and LinkedIn is a good place for this.
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> wrote:
Kurt, all
I believe ICANN have a responsibility to conduct some type of communication/awareness campaign as it related to new gTLDs under the 2012 round, perhaps not explicitly to promote domain names but certainly to raise awareness about the program. I’m not sure whether this was baked into the 2007 policy or the AGB. I don’t believe this was ever done to anyone’s satisfaction and has been raised with ICANN during the last two GDD Summits as a universal awareness rather than a universal acceptance issue. We had some good interaction on the subject with the Board members present during the Summit in Amsterdam last year.
I appreciate that some do not support the idea that ICANN should actively promote domain names, but I do believe that ICANN has a responsibility to inform consumers about the single most important change to the Internet in years. So just like the Australian Government and other governments have run consumer awareness campaigns about the changeover from analog to digital television, ICANN should be responsible for a consumer awareness campaign regarding the introduction of thousands of new TLDs. I have previously suggested this to Akram during interactions with the GDD and the GNSO Council and his response has been that ICANN cannot promote one TLD over another. During the same discussion James Bladel also suggested that ICANN has a responsibility to inform all consumers about any policy changes that have the potential to impact them, referring at the time to changes to verifying WHOIS that had been causing some issues at the time.
I guess my question is if this PDP WG is the wrong place, as some suggest, to consider this as a policy issue—what would be the right place?
Donna
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz *Sent:* Sunday, April 02, 2017 11:17 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; avri@apc.org *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Domain Name Promotion
Hi Jeff, Avri, et al:
I saw that this has been published. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/ correspondence/diaz-to-atallah-et-al-14mar17-en.pdf <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system...>
The reason I am writing is in reference to the proposal that: “ICANN create a fund, to be seeded with US$3M at start-up, to promote universal awareness of new gTLDs to the general Internet user community, and universal acceptance of new gTLDs across the Internet.”
In the past, when ICANN staff members have been asked in public fora to begin an effort to promote the use of domain names, the response has generally been that it is not ICANN’s role to promote the use of domain names and domain name registries.
To me, this is not an operations question; this is a policy question.
In the current environment, i.e., absent a policy statement, ICANN can easily proceed to take up the RySG recommendation, especially for this relatively small seed fund. I hope we all urge that ICANN do this.
However, if ICANN hesitates to take up an awareness campaign regarding the benefits of domain names (Including how they can be used and their efficacy as a strategic tool), then a policy statement could direct such an action.
ICANN is for two things, the allocation of domain names and IP addresses. Who else is to inform the largely ignorant public on the utility of domain names if not ICANN?
All of us argued about how best to introduce and govern domain name usage - but we are all in favor of domain name uptake and the safe and stable growth of the domain name industry. All of us show up at ICANN meetings to talk about the best way to delegate and register names. If we and ICANN are not for their usage - why be part of this?
Some of us were against the new gTLD program and others were not happy with the final policy or implementation. Does that mean they want to see the program fail? Of course not. The new gTLD program is the culmination of many years and many thousand people-hours of work.
With tools and resources for promoting public understanding of domain names readily available, I don’t see how ICANN (the staff or the community) can sit idly by. With the cash surplus in hand, as Patton said, “we are at the right time in the right place with the right instrument,” to do something to fortify the domain name system and industry.
During the slow process of launching new TLDs, search, apps and social media became strong competition for domain name adoption. It is time for us champions of domain names to use the tools at our disposal, including a small portion of that excess application fee cash, to create public awareness about the domain name industry that we have created.
My recommendation is that this PDP working group should form a team to consider this issue and make a separate recommendation to the GNSO Council in a timely manner. A separate team is justifiable because this effects the previous as well as the next round. I also think the current PDP working group can be more nimble as compared to the effort necessary to start a new policy discussion.
That recommendation could simply be a statement that it *is * the role of ICANN to promote awareness of domain names and the benefits of competition and choice in the domain name industry.
We can show that we can act.
Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt@kjpritz.com
+1.310.400.4184 <+1%20310-400-4184>
Skype: kjpritz
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
*Jean Guillon*
6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France
*Phone:* +33.631109837 <06%2031%2010%2098%2037>
*Skype & Twitter:* jeanguillon
*Web:* www.guillon.com
-- *Jean Guillon* 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France *Phone:* +33.631109837 *Skype & Twitter:* jeanguillon *Web:* www.guillon.com
participants (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alexander Schubert -
Austin, Donna -
Greg Shatan -
Jean Guillon -
Jeff Neuman -
Kurt Pritz -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Phil Corwin -
Steve Chan -
Vanda Scartezini -
Volker Greimann