At-Large Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Workspace

Comment from @Carlton Samuels: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013384.html

==

For those of you who care about what should happen in the event another round of gTLDs is forked by ICANN, this Preliminary Issues Report on Subsequent Procedures would be very important.

It also a signal it is time for you to get engaged in this process.  

I have read the Executive Summary and gone straight to the details of matters that were of particular interest to me and in my estimation, the folks whose interests I advocate; developing country economies and social systems where the Internet is about social and economic development and could be our final game changer.  

I hope my friend and our colleague Evan Leibovitch is taking note here too. For although he has decreased his activities due to changes in his circumstances, his voice and consistent advocacy for positions that impact us still rings in my head on several of the matters raised in the Report.

The domain name market remains largely the province of the dominant economies.  Developing economies are still largely excluded by one or other barriers, some of them finely tuned for preference and aided and abetted, consciously and unconsciously, by ICANN policies. 

The Report groups the matters in five (5) broad categories which is quite useful in digesting. But speaking directly to those of us from developing economies and informed by my experience as Co-Chair of the Applicant Support Working Group in the last round, I urge you read closely the details of matters raised in:

4.2.3  - Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice

4.2.4  - Community Engagement

4.2.5  - Applicant Guide Book (AGB)

4.2.6  - Clarity of Application Process

4.2.7  -  Application Accessed in Rounds

4.2.10 -  Application Fees

4.2.11  -  Communications

4.2.14  -  Support for Applicants from Developing Countries

4.2.15  - Different TLD Types

4.2.17  -  Variable Fees

4.3.5   -  Registrar Discrimination

4.3.9   -  Global Public Interest

4.4.5   -  Community Applications

You will find the report (in English) here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf

Please ensure if you have comments you record them in the areas provided by the At-Large or GNSO.  

-Carlton Samuels

Comment from @holly.raiche

==

Absolutely agree with Carlton. In the first round, it was so very clear that very few applicants outside of the developed world, in fact outside of the US, were a clear sign that the few measures ALAC managed to get had not worked and one of ALAC’s cries was for a review on why there were to few applicants for the developing world.  So find time (I will) to go through this to see what should be improved for the second round. 

Holly

I also agree with Carlton.. and Holly. For example, in the Pacific we just don't have the knowledge, expertise or funds to make an application although it is not that we don't have the wish to be able to pursue or even look into the potential of something in this. For example, the idea of .pacific among several entities within the Pacific which could be used across our region is something that has been bandied around since the new gTLD process began.  I would suspect this lack of capacity,  as well as other important criteria, is the problem for many developing countries for whom the whole new gTLD process is a major divide.