<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" 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=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-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></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,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Alexander<br><br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></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'> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Alan Greenberg<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM<br><b>To:</b> Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><br><b>Cc:</b> 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><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><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, “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></body></html>