[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed May 17 02:27:05 UTC 2017
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start
with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months
and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we
are not allowed to refer to however/whenever
there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>Anne,
>
>To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start
>off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next
>round ends. So that after we have dealt any
>pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
>
>I think the objection I hear most is how can it
>be monitored. The reality is that it takes so
>many months for ICANN to move through the
>process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
>
>However, we could just have ICANN issue the list
>of applications once a month, or once a quarter
>even, to make it easier to track.
>
>When they announce is not related to when the
>application is received and the priority it gets
>in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
>
>Rob
>
>From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM
>To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>,
>'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>,
>Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>,
>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a
>terrible idea when no application has been
>permitted for over 5 years. There is
>“pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible
>idea in terms of ICANN staff
>resources. Personally (and obviously not a
>view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
>
>1. We know GAC will advise Community
>Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen
>Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to
>reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the
>Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the
>contrary. Will the Board act in this situation
>or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it
>out� Why not “cut to the chase†and work
>it out with the GAC now ? All Objection
>processes should apply. PICs have to be made in
>connection with Community applications and they
>can’t be revoked or it voids the registry
>agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop
>more policy on Community applications but watch
>out that we don’t trample on certain rights by
>stating that a Community application has to meet
>a “social goodâ€
>requirement. “Community†is also about
>freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€.
>
>(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and
>Governmental Organization applications in its
>public policy Advice for priority rounds. No
>idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of
>definition and PICs. Could an LRO be
>successful against a Governmental Organization
>application for a geo name? Is there any way
>to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way
>more efficient in resolving policy differences
>before they get to the Board. And would this
>free up the process for geo name applications if
>no application is made by a Governmental
>Organization during this window? Could there
>be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
>
>2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor
>a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all
>easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment
>that brands have made in the marketing of brand
>names that correspond with potential TLD strings
>to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark
>lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply –
>e.g. string confusion, community objection,
>legal rigghts, limited public interest,
>etc. Applications for same brand passing
>initial evaluation process would go into string
>contention. After the contract award, a brand
>may only transfer to a third party acquiring all
>or substantially all its stock or assets, the
>trademark, and the good will associated with the
>brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
>
>3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes
>all ccomers and applications compete. String
>contention and all objection procedures apply.
>
>4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window
>– all types of applications welcome - FFirst
>Come, First Served, (no window but we need a
>public notice process as to strings applied for
>to trigger notice for objections).
>
>Anne
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
>520.629.4428 office
>520.879.4725 fax
><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com
>_____________________________
>[]
>
>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
><http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
>
>From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM
>To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
>
>Appears as though categories, priorities, etc.
>creates concerns around gaming the
>system. Perhaps trying to deal with the
>elephant in the room would be the more direct
>approach. How do we prevent gaming? For
>instance, what if there was no private auction
>process or if the registry could potentially
>lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its
>operations to a different purpose than applied
>for or the TLD was sold within a short period of
>time afterwards? I’m not saying that these
>are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Christa
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM
>To: Rob Hall
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>;
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>
>If conditions remain the same, then yes, you
>would probably experience the rush in the round
>part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But
>this does not resolve the issue of various
>parties having to continue to watch over the
>applications that come in over time. Instead of
>claims notices you'd have to have "application
>notice services" to protect affected parties
>from applications that affect them directly from
>slipping through unnoticed. And even then the
>risk of missing an application someone might
>have a legitimate objection too is very high.
>
>It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say
>two potential applicants have the same idea for
>a string at the same time. One writes up a quick
>application and fires it off while the other
>takes care that the application fits the
>community it is designed to serve, but alas as
>that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
>
>OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
>
>Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all,
>but we at least should consider the risks and
>dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with
>cannot be gamed for public harm.
>
>Best,
>
>Volker
>
>
>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
>Sigh.
>
>My point Volker is that others did it as well,
>and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This
>is clearly not just about one TLD.
>
>Are you really suggesting that if we did a
>round, say 3-4 months of open applications,
>followed by FCFS for any string not applied in
>that round, that you think there would be a rush
>in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
>
>Rob
>
>From: Volker Greimann
><mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net><vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
>To: Rob Hall
><mailto:rob at momentous.com><rob at momentous.com>,
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>
>Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake
>that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
>
>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
>Volker,
>
>Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
>
>Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that
>served to handle the load of the rush.
>
>We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush
>in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was
>no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
>
>Rob
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>on behalf of Volker Greimann
><mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net><vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
>To:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
> I am always surprised when First come First
> served becomes a discussion about the best
> technology. That only occurs when you
> artificially create demand, like we are doing
> in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
> Domains are registered every day on a first
> come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
>
>Actually, when you look at the curves for most
>existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run
>regular "free promotions", you will find that
>the majority will have about half or more of
>their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
>Opening the gates will always create an initial
>rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
>
>Another issue with a continuous process is that
>of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially
>quite easy for potentially affected parties to
>look at what is there and then chose whether an
>objection is warranted or needed. With an open
>free for all, those organizations would have to
>perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have
>to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
>That is nice if you sell such monitoring
>services, but not cost effective for those affected.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>on behalf of Alexander Schubert
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><alexander at schubert.berlin>
>Reply-To:
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>"alexander at schubert.berlin"
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><alexander at schubert.berlin>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
>To:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>Rob,
>
>I agree to a degree. But what with “free
>market access†and “competition� I assume
>we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month
>after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter
>whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing
>process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
>
>If you have no “round†– what is it then?
>The only othher thing than a “round†is
>“First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a
>competition KILLER. The ones will win who have
>the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
>
>There is no way around having a “round†once
>we are ready to accept applications. Plus there
>needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after
>the final Applicant Guidebook is published for
>applicants to make themselves familiar with the
>AGB and form their application: This time it
>won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but
>also many outsiders. The application window
>itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
>
>But I agree with you: Instead of a vague
>“promise†of a next round in “about a
>year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the
>nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A
>fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to
>have the next window right 3 month later –
>ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it.
>Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
>
>So it’s almost like your “continuous
>application mechanism†with one “launch
>date†– just that there are various windows
>with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alexander
>
>
>
>From: Rob Hall [<mailto:rob at momentous.com>mailto:rob at momentous.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
>To:
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin;
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>Alexander,
>
>There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast
>as you are desiring. There will always be
>forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
>
>The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year
>later. And now it looks like it will be
>8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
>
>If we don’t explicitly design a system that
>allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
>
>The need for rounds is artificial. We create
>this by not allowing open applications.
>
>We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD
>launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It
>allows for applications during a period at the
>start in order to deal with contentions.
>
>Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
>
>Oh, and this notion of priority and categories
>also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
>
>I want to be careful that we don’t layer on
>solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
>
>Rob
>
>From:
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>on behalf of Alexander Schubert
><<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin>
>Reply-To:
>"<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin"
><<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>alexander at schubert.berlin>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
>To:
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>Hi,
>
>I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast
>tracking†certain categories – and frankly
>would benefit myself (one of the strings I
>promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these
>suggested categories). But after much thinking I
>must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
>
>Especially as we would have to make sure that no
>“generic keyword based†term would be
>applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or
>BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small
>geo-region identical to a generic string (think
>“.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of
>non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then
>do NOT set up locality requirements and
€¦
>market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
>
>Brands: there is no definition of a “brandâ€
>in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brandâ€
>had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary
>number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally
>before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€.
>If you arre basing your brand on a generic term:
>Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not
>expect that you have a right on the entire
>generic keyword space on top level in the DNS.
>Apply with everybody else – and see whether
>theere is contention. In the real life
>“generic term based Brand protection†works
>because you can exempt the term’s natural
>meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there
>are no “Trademark Goods and Services
>Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning
>would be targeted, too! If you have a brand
>“sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one
>else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sunâ€
>– but you. You haven’t protected “SUNâ€
>froom being used – just for computers, or
>newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75
>Million Chinese people with the surname
>“sun� Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
>
>And “communities†or “non-profits� NOT
>if their application is based on a generic term!
>By fast-tracking them we deny others access.
>This would create a HUGE mess – and liability
>for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
>
>So there must be ONE application window in 2020
>(or whenever it is) – once the applications are
>all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands
>IF there is no contention. But that seems rather
>an implementation than a policy issue, right?
>
>As for the transition of “windows†(rounds)
>to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff
>Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a
>certain round there are only a few (or none?)
>contentions – we open the system up and allow
>real time application submitting. Till then we
>have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual
>“roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap
>in between like now. Most of the
>“adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now
>(between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that
>there will be fewer and smaller
>“adjustments†– they could be added “on
>the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will
>take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2
>years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years
>after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd,
>then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty
>for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
>
>Thanks,
>
>Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
>To: Rob Hall
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>;
>Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>And in fact, categories could give us the
>ability to address the Brand issue and not
>constrain them to rounds should we choose, just
>as we do not constrain them with some of the
>other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
>
>Alan
>
>At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Greg,
>
>Help me understand why you would not want to get
>to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
>
>I believe this entire artificial “in
>rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
>
>I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands
>that missed the last round and want their
>TLD. If we had an open TLD registration
>process, they could have easily applied by
>now. I suspect that the entire reason for
>“Categories•€ is to try and say we
>should proceed with one ahead of another.
>
>By doing it in rounds, we are creating the
>scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
>
>As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed
>why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
>
>Rob.
>
>From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
>To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>
>Cc: Martin Sutton
><<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>martin at brandregistrygroup.org>,
>Jeff Neuman
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>,
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>I don't think that's where we are trying to get
>to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a
>TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for
>this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
>
>There are a number of good reasons for
>categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it
>out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high
>rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
>
>There were certainly problems with the community
>applications (not really a separate "round") but
>something done poorly may be worth doing
>better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror
>stories from different parts of the New gTLD
>Program and from different perspectives. We
>should learn from them, rather than use them as
>an excuse to move away from them.
>
>Greg
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: 917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com> wrote:
>I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
>
>If you think of the place we are trying to get
>to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any
>time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
>
>The arguments for them seem to focus on these
>artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow
>giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can
>just imagine the loud screaming when someone
>games the system. Have we not learned anything
>from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
>
>Rob.
>
>From:
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
>Martin Sutton
><<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
>To: Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >
>Cc: "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>That would be helpful.
>
>I have difficulties reconciling the notion of
>ignoring categories, as it caused no end of
>problems after applications were submitted and
>created unnecessary delays. Where there are
>well-defined categories and a proven demand,
>categories can be created and processes refined
>for that particular category, especially where
>the operating model is very different to the
>traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Martin
>
>Martin Sutton
>Executive Director
>Brand Registry Group
><mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>martin at brandregistrygroup.org
>
>On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com > wrote:
>
>Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article
>you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
>1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>E:
><mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>jeff.neuman at valideus.com
>or <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>T: <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>+1.703.635.7514
>M: <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>+1.202.549.5079
>@Jintlaw
>
>
>From:
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
>[ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
>Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
>To: Steve Chan
><<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>steve.chan at icann.org>;
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>Hi Everyone:
>
>In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting,
>I read the spreadsheet describing the different
>TLD types. (See,
><https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551
>).
>
>It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented
>to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main
>argument for not adding to the categories of
>TLDs in the last round because they would be
>problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
>
>Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether
>most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all
>cases. This means that each of the many tick
>marks presents a significant barrier to: (1)
>getting through the policy discussion in a
>timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
>
>Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
>
>The single most important lesson from the
>2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a
>system where delegation of domain name
>registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
>
>In the last round, the Guidebook provided for
>two category types: community and geographic. In
>my opinion, the implementation of both was
>problematic: look at the variances in CPE
>results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This
>wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task
>itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an
>evaluation panel adjudge a government approval
>of a TLD application if one ministry says,
>‘yes’ and the other ’no’?
>T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple
>compared to evaluating community applications.
>
>The introduction of a number of new gTLD
>categories with a number of different
>accommodations will lead to a complex and
>difficult application and evaluation process
>(and an expensive, complicated contractual
>compliance environment). It is inevitable that
>the future will include ongoing attempts to
>create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
>
>For those who want a smoothly running, fair,
>predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
>
>Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
>Volker A. Greimann
>
>- Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Im Oberen Werk 1
>
>66386 St. Ingbert
>
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
>Email: <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com
>/ www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
><http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
>Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und
>nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt.
>Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung
>oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger
>ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht
>für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich
>mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Volker A. Greimann
>
>- legal department -
>
>
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Im Oberen Werk 1
>
>66386 St. Ingbert
>
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
>Email: <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com
>/ www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>
><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
>CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
><http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
>This e-mail and its attachments is intended only
>for the person to whom it is addressed.
>Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
>content of this email. You must not use,
>disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If
>an addressing or transmission error has
>misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
>author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
>Volker A. Greimann
>
>- Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Im Oberen Werk 1
>
>66386 St. Ingbert
>
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
>Email: <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com
>/ www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
><http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
>Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und
>nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt.
>Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung
>oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger
>ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht
>für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich
>mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Volker A. Greimann
>
>- legal department -
>
>
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Im Oberen Werk 1
>
>66386 St. Ingbert
>
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
>Email: <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com
>/ www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>
><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
>CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
><http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
>This e-mail and its attachments is intended only
>for the person to whom it is addressed.
>Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
>content of this email. You must not use,
>disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If
>an addressing or transmission error has
>misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
>author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>
>Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>
>
>
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>
>
>
>Volker A. Greimann
>
>- Rechtsabteilung -
>
>
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Im Oberen Werk 1
>
>66386 St. Ingbert
>
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
>Email: <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com
>/ www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
>Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
>
><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
>Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
>
>Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
><http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
>Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und
>nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt.
>Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung
>oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger
>ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht
>für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich
>mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Volker A. Greimann
>
>- legal department -
>
>
>
>Key-Systems GmbH
>
>Im Oberen Werk 1
>
>66386 St. Ingbert
>
>Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
>
>Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
>
>Email: <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
>
><http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com
>/ www.BrandShelter.com
>
>
>
>Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
>
><http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
>
>www.twitter.com/key_systems
>
>
>
>CEO: Alexander Siffrin
>
>Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
>
>V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>
>
>
>Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
>
><http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
>
>
>
>This e-mail and its attachments is intended only
>for the person to whom it is addressed.
>Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
>content of this email. You must not use,
>disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If
>an addressing or transmission error has
>misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the
>author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>
>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.
>
>Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
>Content-Description: image001.png
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497;
> creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT";
> modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"
>Content-ID: <image001.png at 01D2CE90.2CAEC770>
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>
>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>
>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>
>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>
>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170516/ba8bba13/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list