<html>
<body>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Greg,<br>
<br>
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone
can apply for a gTLD at any time ?<br>
<br>
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are doing now is
what is causing most of the issues. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of
the contention and issues.<br>
<br>
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a
good idea. Can someone fill me in ?<br>
<br>
Rob.<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b>Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff
Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>,
"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"
<gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<br>
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....)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Greg<br><br>
<b><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"></a>Greg
Shatan<a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"></a><br>
</b>C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>
<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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 ?<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Rob.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:
</b><<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Martin Sutton
<<a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org">
martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a>><br>
<dd>Date: </b>Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM<br>
<dd>To: </b>Jeff Neuman
<<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
><br>
<dd>Cc:
</b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br><br>
<dd>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>That would be helpful. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Kind regards,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Martin<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Martin Sutton<br>
</b>
<dd>Executive Director<br>
<dd>Brand Registry Group<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org">
martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd>On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman
<<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><a name="m_6153581150251737640__MailEndCompose"></a>Thanks
Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months
ago? It may help our discussions later today.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
<dd>Senior Vice President </b>|Valideus USA </b>| Com Laude USA<br>
</b>
<dd>1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600<br>
<dd>Mclean, VA 22102, United States<br>
<dd>E:
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com">jeff.neuman@valideus.com</a> or
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a><br>
<dd>T: <a href="tel:(703)%20635-7514">+1.703.635.7514</a><br>
<dd>M: <a href="tel:(202)%20549-5079">+1.202.549.5079</a><br>
<dd>@Jintlaw<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of </b>Kurt
Pritz<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> Steve Chan
<<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hi Everyone:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet
describing the different TLD types. (See,
<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551">
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551</a>
).<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board
in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not </i>adding to the categories
of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read,
“impossible”) to implement. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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 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’? This sort of issue is simple compared to
evaluating community applications. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD
program, the creation of categories should be avoided. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are
developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be
created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied
in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without
the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or
separate agreements. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the
nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately
administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy
to flesh out my thoughts on this again.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Best regards,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Kurt<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>________________<br>
<dd>Kurt Pritz<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com">kurt@kjpritz.com</a><br>
<dd><a href="tel:(310)%20400-4184">+1.310.400.4184</a><br>
<dd>Skype: kjpritz<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd>On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan
<<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Dear WG Members,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed
agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for
Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>1) Welcome/SOIs <br>
<dd>2) Work Track Updates <br>
<dd>3) GDD Summit Recap <br>
<dd>4) Drafting Team Update
Different TLD Types
(<<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551">
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551</a>
)<br>
<dd>5) Community Comment 2 (CC2)
Update Public Comment available here:
<a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en">
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en</a>
<br>
<dd>6) ICANN59 Planning <br>
<dd>7) AOB<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email
<a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org">gnso-secs@icann.org</a>.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd>Steve<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Steven Chan
<br>
</b>
<dd>Sr. Policy Manager
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>ICANN<br>
</b>
<dd>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<br>
<dd>Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>mobile: <a href="tel:(310)%20339-4410">+1.310.339.4410</a><br>
<dd>office tel: <a href="tel:(310)%20301-5800">+1.310.301.5800</a><br>
<dd>office fax: <a href="tel:(310)%20823-8649">+1.310.823.8649</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
visiting the
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers">
GNSO Newcomer pages</a>.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Follow @GNSO on Twitter:
<a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO">
https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO</a><br>
<dd>Follow the GNSO on Facebook:
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/">
https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/</a><br>
<dd><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br><br>
</dl>
<dd> <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br><br>
</dl> <br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w==<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a></blockquote>
</body>
</html>