[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Thomas Lowenhaupt: An Introduction

[Rubens Kuhl]

Continuing the introduction thread, my SOI at https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rubens+Kuhl+SOI seems current, but in short I oversee new gTLD efforts of  the .br ccTLD registry that for the 2012 round was both an applicant and a registry service provider for other applicants. 

Some topics come to my mind for the next round (or continuing process):
- Whether post-contracting requests like exclusive use (Spec 9), brand TLD (Spec 13) or closed generic request should be moved to application time, in order to give both applicants and competitors for a string clarity on whether they can or cannot operate the TLD as they wish
- Whether exclusive use TLDs should have requirements such as SRS/EPP/WHOIS/Escrow/EBERO instead of simple root delegation (although I think diverse DNS should still be a requirement, but that's probably part of the discussion)
- String similarity criteria
- String confusion standing to object that in the 2012 round was limited to TLD operators and applicants, to possibly be granted to other interested parties (like registrants of a TLD, ALAC etc.) 
- Change requests versus community evaluation and objection processing
- Clear and defined clarification questions process
- Clear and defined draw process (possibly bundled with application process)
- Whether to introduce or not meaning similarity criteria like singular/plural
- Whether to allow single-character IDN TLDs (notably for scripts other than Latin and Cyrillic)
- Whether to allow variant TLDs (like .saopaulo and .sãopaulo) with required (or not) bundling rules, including variants of the at the time existing TLDs


Rubens



Em 27/07/2014, à(s) 00:55:000, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml at communisphere.com> escreveu:

> By way of introduction…
> 
> I’ve been involved with ICANN in different capacities since 1998: governance issues, new TLDs, now ALAC.
> 
> In 2005, to support the acquisition of the .nyc TLD as a public interest resource, I started the not-for-profit Connecting.nyc Inc. Currently I serve on the Mayor’s .NYC Community Advisory Board with a role in reviewing our city’s plans for its TLD.
> 
> Why Am I Interested In This Working Group?
> 
> Section 1.2.2 of the 2012 Applicant Guidebook required city-TLD applicants to include a Letter of Non-Objection with their application:
> 
> “If an applicant has applied for a gTLD string that is a geographic name (as defined in this guidebook), the applicant is required to submit documentation of support for or nonobjection to its application from the relevant governments or public authorities.”
> 
> Having closely followed the acquisition and development process for the .nyc TLD since 2001, I’ve concluded that the Non-objection standard is inadequate.
> 
> I hope to convince the Working Group that the application process for city-TLDs be changed; that applications for city-TLDs include an indication of Informed Consent rather than Non-Objection.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tom Lowenhaupt
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20140728/a5de460d/attachment.html>