[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

Aikman-Scalese, Anne AAikman at lrrc.com
Thu Aug 31 23:22:02 UTC 2017

I don’ t have an objection to establishing 2 tracks – one for established services evaluation and one for new proposed services evaluation.

I do object to charging more for an application that proposes new services – it’s against the goal of innovation and creativity.

I do object to dealing with proposals for new services in the contracting phase.  It is not transparent to the community.


Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>


[cid:image003.png at 01D32275.46EEF5E0]

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 700

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611


From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:03 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

On Aug 31, 2017, at 7:23 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

If no innovation occurred in 2012, then we have a serious problem because there is little reason for the program to exist to establish unlimited domains.

Co-chair hat on:
The question of whether should there be new gTLDs was one of the first the Full WG addressed, and the answer was yes. WT4 is not empowered to reopen that question.

Co-chair hat off:
Even if there was no innovation, the CCT review indicates increase in competition and customer choice, so at least those objectives were achieved. I believe that most innovation that could occur is currently deterred by the gTLD framework itself, so the same factors preventing current registries from launch innovative services deter new gTLDs that could bring innovation; it's not a different string that would enable an innovation that wasn't possible before.

I think I sent once to this list, but it's a good time to send it again: a TED presentation that identified why startups succeed... the (spoilers ahead) answer is timing. And considering the gigantic failure of the program in having predictable timing, it's not a surprise that no innovation came of it.

Also of notice is that most of what we are seeing in this century derives from permission-less innovation, and a program that subjects ideas to one evaluation after another is anything but permission-less. If that's what it takes to have stability in a foundational resource such as the DNS, then what we do is justified, but we have to admit guilt in sacrificing innovation in order to safeguard stability.



This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170831/6bd0a30f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6501 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170831/6bd0a30f/image003-0001.png>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list