<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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";}
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;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
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>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Alex<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">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></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">If we had a round of 3 months, where anyone could apply, and then it just became first come first serve after that, you would have no rush. No technology would help. There would be no
mad rush at the end of the round. There would be no point to it. People would apply for the TLD they wanted when they wanted to.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Rob.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><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;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>"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<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 [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin; 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</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 href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>"<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>" <<a 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 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>
<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 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>]
<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 href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>; Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a 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 “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 <<a 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 href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Martin Sutton <<a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a>>, Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>>, "<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>
<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 name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"><b>Greg Shatan</b></a><b><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:<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 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>><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 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 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>><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 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 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 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 href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com">
jeff.neuman@valideus.com</a> or <a 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 href="tel:(703)%20635-7514">
+1.703.635.7514</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">M: <a href="tel:(202)%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 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 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 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> <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 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, “impossible”)
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>
</body>
</html>