<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hello,<br><br></div>as per the invitation to comment on the subsequent procedures we submit our input and suggestions. Please do get in touch if any of our points have not been expressed clearly and/or need further explanation.<br><br>1.1.1 We would suggest approved RSPs have their own version of "EBERO"
in their pre-validation process/accreditation and remove that as part of the Registry Agreement
altogether if a "known"/prevalidated registry service provider is used,
thus removing another redundancy double-checking per-application, if
not removing the COI, EBERO, Data Escrow entirely as per answer 2.3.1. The reason to single out EBERO under the RSP model is they are generally acting as RSP for multiple registry operators and if the technical registry backend were to fail there is no call for having multiple separate agreements with each registry operator as that would only make things more difficult.<br>
<br>
1.4.1 We suggest a TLD-type approach is considered, where an
open-generic, closed-generic, brand, community are all priced at their
reasonable fee. There are significant differences in the evaluation of
these different types of TLDs and therefore the costs incurred by ICANN
are also significantly different.<br>
<br>
1.4.2 Considering a TLD-type model as suggested, and based on our own
experience with a brand TLD, there was far too much overhead with the
application that did not apply to a brand, all of which, if removed,
would reduce the cost of a brand application substantially. In the case
of using a pre-approved RSP the checks and tests required are also
removed therefore removing another resource cost from ICANN, further
justifying the reduction of application fees.<br>
<br>
1.5.1 Yes, the fee should depend on the expected workload to process
that application. Community evaluations or contention set resolutions
require more resource from ICANN than a non-contested dot brand
application. If our other suggestions in 2.3.1, 1.1.1, 4.3.2.4 are also
considered, then a dot brand application would amount to a small
fraction of work required to validate a comparable generic application.
Applying the RSP model and removing the need for PDT and technical
evaluation further justifies reducing the fee. We suggest using a
continuously open application system, where the cost is defined
per-application-type and a separate fee payable on top if the TLD
becomes contested during the application hold term. This will allow
lowering fees for uncontested strings and cover the costs of contention
resolution in cases where a contention is, but avoid over-charging and
making a surplus from applications where it is not justified. For
example; a TLD is applied for by party 1, this TLD is then placed on
hold for 3/6 months. If during this term another application is received
from party 2 the TLD becomes contested, requiring all involved parties
to pay an additional fee to resolve the contention set or allow any
parties to cancel their application. Conversely, where no contention is
found the TLD can simply proceed through the normal delegation process.<br>
<br>
1.5.2 We see no negative implications to differentiating application
types. Throughout the previous round they were informally categorized or
defined on-the-fly during the application process. Formalizing this
categorization would provide the much needed clarity that plagued the
previous round. Additionally, beneficial effects would be gained, namely
reduced evaluation complexity, costs and time.<br>
<br>
1.6 We suggest a continuously available application system, eliminating
the need for rounds entirely. A way to avoid potentially malicious
attempts is to publish the applied-for TLDs immediately at their
application and keep them on hold for 3 (or so) months (length as per
'rounds' windows suggestions) during which time a rival applicant may
apply.<br>
<br>
1.7.1 During a continuously available application system brands and
communities should still be prioritized if applied for within the
application window as of the first received application for that TLD.<br>
<br>
2.3.1 Brand TLDs should be exempt from the requirements for an EBERO,
COI or Data Escrow. As soon as the brand TLD is unable to meet its
commitments it is only harming a single registrant and therefore itself.
The true purpose of all these measures is to protect an end-user of a
domain in the case of the registry business failing to operate. When the
only end-user is the RO as well, these measures do not protect anyone.<br>
<br>
4.3.2.4 We agree with the assertion, since the business model of a brand
registry is not at-all for-profit, there is no reason why a model needs
to exist. A brand applicant should only need to demonstrate that it is
able to meet its financial commitments to ICANN.<br>
<br>
Additional questions:<br>
<br>
2. As stated before, we would suggest a continuously open application
period (at least for brand TLDs if not across the board) where a TLD can be applied for at any
time, and is then placed on-hold to see if a rival application is
submitted within 3 (6 or so, as per community consensus) months. This
would allow time for rival applications to be put forward if necessary
and remove the need to wait for 8 years before a TLD can be applied for.<br><br></div>Best Regards,<br clear="all"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>David Krizanic<br></div>Chief Technology Officer<br><br></div>Demys Limited, 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7JF<br></div>Telephone: +44 (0) 131 226 0660<br></div>Demys Limited is a company registered in Scotland under number SC197176<br><div><br>-------------------------------------<br></div><div>Follow us on twitter @DemysLtd<br></div><div><a href="http://www.demys.com" target="_blank">www.demys.com</a><br>-------------------------------------<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div>