[Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by previous applicant

[Steve Chan]

Donna,

Thanks for the catch ­ always good to add clarity. My understanding is that
the ³Variable fees² section relates to the application fee whereas
underneath ³Different TLD Types,² variable annual RA agreement fees could be
considered. As such, I¹ve made the following simple edits in a new working
draft that I will once again circulate as additional suggestions arrive.

> * Different TLD Types: Does the one-size-fits-all application and review
> process hamper innovation? Should things such as the application process,
> requirements, annual fees, contractual requirements, etc. be variable based on
> the TLD type? Should an existing Registry Operator, that is fulfilling the
> requirements of its Registry Agreement, be subject to a different, more
> streamlined, application process?
> * Variable fees: Should the application fee be variable based on such factors
> as application type (such as open or closed registries), multiple identical
> applications, etc.?

Hopefully this addresses your concerns although if not, please feel free to
suggest specific edits.

Best,
Steve

From:  Donna Austin <Donna.Austin at ariservices.com>
Date:  Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 12:05 PM
To:  Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org"
<gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant

Steve, all
 
I have a question regarding ŒVariable fees¹ the last dot point under Group 1
of the Charter. Does that refer to Application Fees or fees in the registry
agreement?
 
Thanks
 
Donna
 

From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
Sent: Monday, 1 June 2015 3:56 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant
 

All,

 

I have made the following updates to the draft charter:
* Incorporated the suggestion from Donna Austin from 27 May
* Made the change suggested by Philip Sheppard and the BRG, although I made
it far more general because as Philip noted, the set of circumstances
described would not be limited to just .brands.
* Regarding the comments from Thomas Lowenhaupt, I did not make a change in
the charter, but instead made a change in the matrix, where I included a
link to Thomas¹ Wiki post about Informed Consent, so that it can be
considered in full by a possible WG.
The latest versions are attached and also available on the Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/DRAFT+Deliverables. If there are
any disagreements with how the items have been captured, do of course let me
know and I¹ll be happy to update.

 

When we reach the finish line, I¹ll once again integrate the DG's three
documents into a single, clean document.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

From: "philip at brandregistrygroup.org" <philip at brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, June 1, 2015 at 3:46 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-dg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] Additional item to charter: application by
previous applicant

 

Steve, Jeff, Bret,

 

a BRG member has made this suggestion which I think could be wider than just
.brands. Could you agree to add it to the Charter maybe in Section II, Group
1, around the bullet "Different TLD Types? Feel free to turn the text into
the style of the Charter.

 

 

Philip Sheppard

Director General

Brand Registry Group

www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org>

 
----------------------------

 

Application by a previous applicant

In case a (.brand) RO (from the first round) applies for another (.brand)
gTLD in the subsequent application window, certain requirements of the
application could be shortened, reduced of even omitted (e.g., financial,
technical, administrative, etc.) in case such RO is duly fulfilling its
current RA and running its (.brand) gTLD. It seems some time could be saved
during the application process if ICANN validates most of the the RO
information.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150602/5f17e0a4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-dg/attachments/20150602/5f17e0a4/smime-0001.p7s>