Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review

[James Gannon]

I find myself in agreement with Ayden on this one, but I realise that Im in the rough here.

I don’t think that approaching the security and stable management of a TLD is something that needs to be lowered and supported, if we do so we run the risk of entering registries or operators into the root that do not have the financial stability required to operate a new gTLD. I agree that supports can be offered but I don’t agree that we should be subsiding or telling groups what they need to do to be able to run such a core part of the internet.

-James

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM<mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>>
Reply-To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM<mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>>
Date: Tuesday 23 May 2017 at 08:53
To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
Subject: Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review

Hi Bill,

indeed, we got involved in the applicant support. Many from NCSG participated actively in the applicant support working group aka JAS. for reference, you can check the recommendations and reports made by the working group here https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/jas-wg-materials. one of concern was the late implementation of support program when the applications process started.

I understand that people tend to focus on the application fee but at the working group, we acknowledged that is not the main issue. We worked on other aspects like in-kind support for technical, legal and other matters not just for the application but the operation too. there were several entities keen to provide such support. there was also an idea to encourage common registry providers as shared pool for such applicants.

Regarding the support for the application fee, there are several constraints in such way that an applicant who went for it and finds itself ineligible will have its application rejected in the new gTLD program.

we should continue the work in the subsequent procedures working group to remove all unneeded restrictions imposed by requirements in the applicant guidebook.

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-23 16:34 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
Hi gents

NCSG was centrally involved in raising and then pushing applicant support back in 2009-2011.  Are you saying we should now reverse our very public position?  I’m not convinced, but would like to hear more rationale for the reversal as well as the views of others, including those who put a lot of time into this back in the day.

Thanks

Bill

On May 22, 2017, at 21:23, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

I agree with you Ayden. Lowering entry barriers, not “financial aid,” is the solution. Moreover, offering financial aid will encourage some applicants to apply even if there is no sustainable market demand. We should be talking about exempting developing country applicants from expensive regulatory requirements, not offering them subsidies.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/



From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 10:03 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
Subject: Re: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review

Bruna, THANK YOU so much for drafting this. This is excellent. I have made a number of edits to this statement, mainly stylistic in nature, but I have also added a few comments. I'm not sure that we have an agreed position on this topic just yet, particularly in relation to paragraphs #5 and #6. I would like to hear from others to see if they think this is a position that the NCSG should take. Personally I am reluctant to support a call for financial aid for applicants; while the application fee per new gTLD is $185,000, my understanding is that the real cost to launch a new gTLD is closer to $2,000,000 once you take into account other requirements. So I don't think lowering the cost of the application fee is going to have too much of an effect on improving consumer choice and the availability of new gTLDs in more scripts and languages. But I might be wrong. Thanks again for taking the lead on this comment.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline
linkedin.com/in/ferdeline<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Comment on GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / Consultation and review
Local Time: May 22, 2017 1:01 AM
UTC Time: May 22, 2017 12:01 AM
From: rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM<mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>

Hi all,

Bruna kindly volunteered and drafted this response to the Community Comment consultation from the new gTLD subsequent procedures working group for NCSGhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/133uzvDQI__EmNGhqiDkHW0EvfvKOwLE9m7ozNIZUVNY/edit. the details about the public consultation are here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en.

The deadline for submission is the 22nd May, so we have a short time to do so. I think we can attempt a late submission and hopefully be accepted by the working group. We should review, add comments, editing and be tidying up the document in the next 3 days and submitting by this Wednesday after endorsement by the policy committee. because of the time constraints, please add wording and edits when you make comments.

looking forward your participation and asking those who were involved in the previous new gTLD policy discussion to jump in.

Best,

Rafik


***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170523/99aa6515/attachment.htm>