<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p></o:p></span>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4DA57BA8-3A97-4529-9ADB-DBB63DF415D6@momentous.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p>Domains
are registered every day on a first come first served basis
in all the new gTLD’s.
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the
fastest will benefit from most.<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost
effective for those affected.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4DA57BA8-3A97-4529-9ADB-DBB63DF415D6@momentous.com"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org></a>
on behalf of Alexander Schubert
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"><alexander@schubert.berlin></a><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">"alexander@schubert.berlin"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin"><alexander@schubert.berlin></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017
at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Rob,<br>
<br>
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” – the number
of applications won’t change.<br>
<br>
If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other
thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a
competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best
“gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE
competition?<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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 next 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 not allow for
it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
<br>
<br>
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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><br>
Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> Rob Hall
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">mailto:rob@momentous.com</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>;
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May
2017 at 15:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">If we don’t
explicitly design a system that allows it to be open
applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">The need for
rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open
applications.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Contentions
only exist because we are not allowing open applications.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Oh, and this
notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we
just allow open applications.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I want to be
careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with
convoluted categories for a problem we created.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Rob</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>
on behalf of Alexander Schubert <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017
at 15:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Hi,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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.<br>
<br>
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 “.bar”) –
obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked.
They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market
to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic
term.
<br>
<br>
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the
DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50
(arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally
before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are
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 there 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 DNS there are no
“Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the
generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a
brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a
right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t
protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or
newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese
people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a
gTLD for them.<br>
<br>
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 would get sued up and down.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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 “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in
between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook
is due now (between the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup>
round). After that there will be fewer and smaller
“adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess
the 2<sup>nd</sup> round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s
capacity for say 2 years. So the 3<sup>rd</sup> round could
be set 2 years after the 2<sup>nd</sup>, the 4<sup>th</sup>
a year after the 3<sup>rd</sup>, then biannual rounds. Just:
We need certainty for future applicants – and definite
schedule!
<br>
<br>
Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alexander<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Rob Hall <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>;
Greg Shatan <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda:
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May
2017 at 15:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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 “Categoriesâ€
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 <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Rob Hall <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Martin Sutton <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a>>,
Jeff Neuman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>>,
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><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>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"><b>Greg
Shatan</b></a><b><br>
</b>C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">I honestly
can’t see the purpose of categories.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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 ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Rob.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">From: <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of
Martin Sutton <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org">
martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Date: Monday,
May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">To: Jeff
Neuman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">Cc:
"<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Subject: Re:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">That would be
helpful. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Martin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Martin Sutton<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Executive
Director<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Brand Registry
Group<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On 15 May
2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
name="m_6153581150251737640__MailEndCompose"></a>Thanks
Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months
ago? It may help our discussions later today.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Jeffrey J.
Neuman<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Senior Vice
President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">1751 Pinnacle
Drive, Suite 600<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Mclean, VA
22102, United States<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">E: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com">
jeff.neuman@valideus.com</a> or <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">T: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28703%29%20635-7514">
+1.703.635.7514</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">M: <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28202%29%20549-5079">
+1.202.549.5079</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">@Jintlaw<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">From: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Kurt Pritz<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Sent: Monday,
May 15, 2017 6:35 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">To: Steve Chan
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a>>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Subject: Re:
[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Hi Everyone:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">In reading the
agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet
describing the different TLD types. (See,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551</a>
).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Categories of
TLDs have always been problematic.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">For those who
want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the
creation of categories should be avoided.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Instead,
the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>
Web: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.key-systems.net">www.key-systems.net</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.RRPproxy.net">www.RRPproxy.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.domaindiscount24.com">www.domaindiscount24.com</a> / <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.BrandShelter.com">www.BrandShelter.com</a>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems">www.facebook.com/KeySystems</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/key_systems">www.twitter.com/key_systems</a>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.keydrive.lu">www.keydrive.lu</a>
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.
</pre>
</body>
</html>