<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Dear Councillors,<div><br></div><div>I would like to propose that we add some time on our Singapore agenda for discussing next steps in preparation for Round 2 of the new gTLD launch. As you may know, in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN wrote the following about subsequent new gTLD rounds:</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><b>1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds</b></div><div><br></div><div>ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application</div><div>rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will be</div><div>based on experiences gained and changes required after</div><div>this round is completed. The goal is for the next application</div><div>round to begin within one year of the close of the</div><div>application submission period for the initial round.</div><div><br></div><div>ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New</div><div>gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone system</div><div>after the first application round, and will defer the</div><div>delegations in a second application round until it is</div><div>determined that the delegations resulting from the first</div><div>round did not jeopardize root zone system security or</div><div>stability.</div><div><br></div><div>It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent</div><div>application rounds, and that a systemized manner of</div><div>applying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The "the close of the application submission period for the initial round” was May, 2012, so the goal for the launch of Round 2 has already been missed, by a material amount of time. I think we all would agree that many aspects of the program, from the application process to the review and implementation, should be reviewed and revisited. </div><div><br></div><div>Let’s spend some time discussing “subsequent application rounds" and see if we can come to a shared understanding of what the proper next steps would be, including the role of the Council and the GNSO in the review process. </div><div><br></div><div>I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in Singapore.</div><div><br></div><div> Bret</div><div><br></div><div><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">--<br>Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. <br>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536<br>310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • <a href="mailto:bret@uniregistry.com">bret@uniregistry.com</a><br>— — — — — <br><br><br><br></div>
</div>
<br></div><br><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">--<br>Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. <br>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536<br>310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • <a href="mailto:bret@nic.sexy">bret@nic.sexy</a><br>— — — — — <br><br><br><br></div>
</div>
<br></body></html>