<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>If categories are used, gaming should be prevented as well as
possible. For example, a .BRAND should not be allowed to "permit
use" of the TLD to third parties if it benefitted from this status
in its application and unless it agrees to comply with the rules
and contractual requirements of any other open TLD. <br>
</p>
<p>I am also not entirely sold on the non-for-profit idea, since it
is entirely possible for a non-for-profit organization to be set
up that pays its employees royally just to avoid making a profit
but in all other resprects acts as a for-profit. Or a
non-for-profit org could conceivably use the TLD as a cash cow to
fund its other NFP operations. <br>
</p>
<p>Volker<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.05.2017 um 15:47 schrieb Michele
Neylon - Blacknight:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:F82B6F1C-0731-409B-BA00-DA2D6CD0BC5B@blacknight.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Categories
don’t go away.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">A
.brand TLD shouldn’t be forced to follow the same criteria
as an open TLD.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Someone
suggested that this difference could be handled via
contracts, but either way if there’s more than one type of
contract that creates de facto categories. And they’re
definitely needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">--</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Mr Michele Neylon</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Blacknight Solutions</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Hosting, Colocation & Domains<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.blacknight.com/">https://www.blacknight.com/</a></span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://blacknight.blog/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">https://blacknight.blog/</span></a></span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://ceo.hosting/"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://ceo.hosting/</span></a></span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">-------------------------------</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit
12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"
lang="EN-US">Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Ireland
Company No.: 370845</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></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",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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 Rob Hall <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rob@momentous.com"><rob@momentous.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday 16 May 2017 at 15:37<br>
<b>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>,
<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",sans-serif">Alexander,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Rob</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </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",sans-serif;color:black">From:
</span></b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;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 9:31 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</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",sans-serif">Hi,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">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",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alexander<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </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",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rob@momentous.com"><rob@momentous.com></a>; Greg
Shatan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <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">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>
<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>