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

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at nic.br
Fri Sep 1 11:11:49 UTC 2017

> On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:
> Hi all:
> I have not been part of the discussion so please forgive my taking the liberty to comment.
> I agree with Anne’s points.

Could you, Sarah and Anne come up with what would be different from the latest straw person sent to the list ?

> If we zoom up from the operational details and consider the overall policy that we are currently constructing, I think it is worthwhile for us to state that, as a policy, “the gTLD Program should be administered in a way that encourages innovation.” Or maybe “…in a way that encourages innovation, competition and choice.”
> Given that policy, then naturally ICANN would not charge additional fees, nor delay applications with innovative uses for the TLD.

If an evaluation is done for some and not others, we either delay all of them, or just the ones with that evaluation.

> Practically speaking (and to the extent we offer implementation advice), given that an RSEP is supposed to take 15 days and the (somewhat rare) technical review takes 45 days, I see no reason why those reviews cannot happen easily within the initial evaluation period. It may be slightly inefficient to conduct those RSEP reviews before the application passes the other substantive reviews but if it is our policy to encourage innovation, then that inefficiency is a small price to pay.

I don't see a problem evaluating RSEP while not knowing if the application passed or not; the data from 2012 is clear that most, and almost all, applications will pass. And this is true for many other evaluations that we will discuss in WT4... it's probably not true for CPE, Objections and all those pesky WT3 subjects. ;-)

> While we have not seen great innovation to date, I don’t think that should change our thinking. I have worked with one TLD that does have some great (I think) ideas for alternative uses and I know there are some others.

Would those innovations require different Registry Services ? From 2012, I have mentioned both one that would (Google dotless proposal) and one that didn't (.frogans). Not all innovations may require a different list of Registry Services.

> This should not dissuade us from our policies that we lay the most fertile ground for innovation that we can.

But coming to Amdhal's law again, if the overall gTLD framework and the SubPro framework in particular is innovation-averse, whatever we do in registry services evaluation has its efficiency limited by scope. Adding one tidbit of innovation fostering just makes us feel better, without having practical effects on innovation.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4/attachments/20170901/412e4e79/signature.asc>

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