<div dir="ltr">Hi Iftikhar,<div><br></div><div>I support the direction of consolidating similar categories. I can understand why we would want to lump 3 with 5, but we need to revisit what we want as the key factor that separates a TLD into a different category be based upon their intent in running the TLD (meaning whether its for profit or not). Essentially, you could have that at the top of the hierarchy, but even within the for profit and not-for-profit TLDs there are further break downs such as validated TLDs, open-registration, etc. There are many overlaps that are possible over parent and subcategories. Yet, Geo TLDs seems to be an existing category itself (whether or not is run by the government or with the non-objection of a government).</div><div><br></div><div>I support the notion of having 3 to 4 categories of TLDs. Furthermore, I also think that each of these should be able to have different contracts with ICANN. If one were to further breakdown those 3 or 4 categories into further subcategories, you could have provisions that may not apply to a certain subcategory. That is a conversation we have been discussing in the WT2, but can certainly be opened up here for feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>To echo Jannik's model, we might foresee something like the following.</div><div><br></div><div>1. Not-for profit</div><div><br></div><div>2. For-profit</div><div><br></div><div>3. Geo</div><div><br></div><div>4. Spec 13 Brands</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Michael Flemming</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Iftikhar Hussain Shah <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gac1@moitt.gov.pk" target="_blank">gac1@moitt.gov.pk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="m_-3297823780197662039WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">With reference to Jannik Skou e-mail below,
</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> the categories like 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” and 5. For profit TLDs are creating confusion cause of relating to profit TLDs. It is suggested that we may reduce
the number of categories and consider into broad categories.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Iftikhar<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<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 href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jannik Skou<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:58 PM<span class=""><br>
<b>To:</b> Rob Hall<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">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<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rob and All<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I suggest these five categories:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/<wbr>Municipality </b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <b>2. Not for Profit TLDs</b> (substituting the “community TLDs”) <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply
for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” </b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(Still based on letter of support/non-objection). <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs </b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH)
are also in Category 4. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>5. For profit TLDs </b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">(equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">“For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs”<wbr> In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set
resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories
to gain an advantage.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business
plans etc.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: <a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachments/20170403/8a973579/GNSOCC2NewgTLDSubProceduresCommentsfromJannikSkouThomsenTrampedach-0001.pdf" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/<wbr>pipermail/comments-subsequent-<wbr>procedures-22mar17/<wbr>attachments/20170403/8a973579/<wbr>GNSOCC2NewgTLDSubProceduresCom<wbr>mentsfromJannikSkouThomsenTram<wbr>pedach-0001.pdf</a> -
This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would
be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss,<br>
<br>
Jannik Skou, MBA<br>
Partner<br>
<br>
Thomsen Trampedach GmbH<br>
Grundstrasse 22a<br>
6343 Rotkreuz<br>
Switzerland<br>
<br>
T<span class="m_-3297823780197662039apple-tab-span"> </span><a href="tel:+45%2022%2027%2056%2096" value="+4522275696" target="_blank">+45.22275696</a><br>
M<span class="m_-3297823780197662039apple-tab-span"> </span><a href="mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com" target="_blank">js@thomsentrampedach.com</a><br>
W<span class="m_-3297823780197662039apple-tab-span"> </span><a href="http://thomsentrampedach.com" target="_blank">http://thomsentrampedach.com</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Are we talking about categories of contracts ?<br>
<br>
Or are we talking about categories as applications.<br>
<br>
I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths.<br>
<br>
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
<br>
From: Jean Guillon <<a href="mailto:jean@guillon.com" target="_blank">jean@guillon.com</a>><br>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM<br>
To: "<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.<wbr>ch</a>" <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>><br>
Cc: Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>" <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>" <gnso-newgtld-<a href="mailto:wg@icann.org" target="_blank">wg@icann.org</a>><span class=""><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<br></span>
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to.<br>
In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options".<br>
Categories offer precision.<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <<a href="mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" target="_blank">Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Good point!<br>
Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.<br>
<br>
Jorge<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>__<br>
<br>
Von: Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>><br>
Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ<br>
An: Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com</a>>, Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <wbr><<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<span class=""><br>
<br>
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>
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></span>
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.<span class=""><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></span><span class="">
Rob.<br>
<br>
From: Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br></span>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM<br>
To: Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com</a>><br>
Cc: Martin Sutton <<a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org" target="_blank">martin@brandregistrygroup.org</a><wbr>>, Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><span class=""><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<br></span><span class="">
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></span><span class="">
Greg<br>
<br>
Greg Shatan<br>
C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" value="+19178166428" target="_blank">917-816-6428</a><br>
S: gsshatan<br>
</span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com<<wbr>mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><wbr>><br>
<br>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com%3cmailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@<wbr>momentous.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.<span class=""><br>
<br>
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.<br>
<br>
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community
rounds we just went through ?<br>
<br>
Rob.<br>
<br></span>
From: < <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-<wbr>wg-bounces@icann.org</a>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <<a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org%3cmailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org" target="_blank">martin@brandregistrygroup.<wbr>org<mailto:martin@<wbr>brandregistrygroup.org</a>>><span class=""><br>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM<br></span>
To: Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<<wbr>mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.<wbr>com</a>> ><br>
Cc: " <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<<wbr>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>>" < <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<<wbr>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>>><span class=""><br>
<br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<br></span><span class="">
That would be helpful.<br>
<br>
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes
refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
Martin Sutton<br>
Executive Director<br>
Brand Registry Group<br>
</span><a href="mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org%3cmailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org" target="_blank">martin@brandregistrygroup.org<<wbr>mailto:martin@<wbr>brandregistrygroup.org</a>><span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<<wbr>mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.<wbr>com</a>> > wrote:<br>
<br>
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.<br>
<br></span><span class="">
Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA<br>
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600<br>
Mclean, VA 22102, United States<br></span>
E: <a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com" target="_blank">jeff.neuman@valideus.com<<wbr>mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.<wbr>com</a>>
<a href="mailto:orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank">orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<<wbr>mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.<wbr>com</a>><br>
T: <a href="tel:(703)%20635-7514" value="+17036357514" target="_blank">+1.703.635.7514</a><<a href="tel:(703)%20635-7514" target="_blank">tel:(703)%<wbr>20635-7514</a>><br>
M: <a href="tel:(202)%20549-5079" value="+12025495079" target="_blank">+1.202.549.5079</a><<a href="tel:(202)%20549-5079" target="_blank">tel:(202)%<wbr>20549-5079</a>><br>
@Jintlaw<br>
<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-<wbr>wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> [
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz<span class=""><br>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM<br></span>
To: Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank">steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:<wbr>steve.chan@icann.org</a>>>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-<wbr>newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:<wbr>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><span class=""><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<br></span>
Hi Everyone:<br>
<br>
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" target="_blank">https://docs.<wbr>google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_<wbr>hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff<wbr>zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551</a><wbr> ).<br>
<br>
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.<span class=""><br>
<br>
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean
implementation.<br>
<br>
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.<br>
<br>
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.<br>
<br></span>
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.<span class=""><br>
<br>
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the
future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.<br>
<br>
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.<br>
<br></span>
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all
policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.<br>
<br>
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.<br>
<br>
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Kurt<br>
<br>
________________<br>
Kurt Pritz<br>
<a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com%3cmailto:kurt@kjpritz.com" target="_blank">kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@<wbr>kjpritz.com</a>><br>
<a href="tel:(310)%20400-4184" value="+13104004184" target="_blank">+1.310.400.4184</a><<a href="tel:(310)%20400-4184" target="_blank">tel:(310)%<wbr>20400-4184</a>><br>
Skype: kjpritz<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank">steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:<wbr>steve.chan@icann.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear WG Members,<br>
<br>
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.<br>
<br>
1) Welcome/SOIs<br>
2) Work Track Updates<br>
3) GDD Summit Recap<br>
4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>spreadsheets/d/1mA_<wbr>hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff<wbr>zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551</a><wbr> )<br>
5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: <a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-<wbr>subsequent-procedures-2017-03-<wbr>22-en</a><br>
6) ICANN59 Planning<br>
7) AOB<br>
<br>
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email <a href="mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-secs@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-secs@icann.org<<wbr>mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org</a>>.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
Steven Chan
<br>
Sr. Policy Manager

<br>
<br>
ICANN<br>
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<br>
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
<br>
<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank">steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:<wbr>steve.chan@icann.org</a>><br>
mobile: <a href="tel:(310)%20339-4410" value="+13103394410" target="_blank">+1.310.339.4410</a><<a href="tel:(310)%20339-4410" target="_blank">tel:(<wbr>310)%20339-4410</a>><br>
office tel: <a href="tel:(310)%20301-5800" value="+13103015800" target="_blank">+1.310.301.5800</a><<a href="tel:(310)%20301-5800" target="_blank">tel:(310)<wbr>%20301-5800</a>><br>
office fax: <a href="tel:(310)%20823-8649" value="+13108238649" target="_blank">+1.310.823.8649</a><<a href="tel:(310)%20823-8649" target="_blank">tel:(310)<wbr>%20823-8649</a>><br>
<br>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/<wbr>sites/gnso.icann.org/files/<wbr>gnso/presentations/policy-<wbr>efforts.htm#newcomers</a>>.<br>
<br>
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/<wbr>ICANN_GNSO</a><br>
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/" target="_blank">https://www.<wbr>facebook.com/icanngnso/</a><br>
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<<wbr>mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<<wbr>mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<<wbr>mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.<wbr>org</a>><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br>
Content-Disposition: inline<br>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-<wbr>Diagnostics:<br>
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:<wbr>hi4CACBB3Lp+<wbr>ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5g<wbr>bVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+<wbr>jrvbE01uBDKEf+<wbr>4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W<wbr>217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4<wbr>/XvxDXMj+za9w==<br>
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-<wbr>Delivery:<br>
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(<wbr>400001000070)(400125000095)(<wbr>20160514016)(520000050)(<wbr>520002050)(750028)(<wbr>400001001070)(400125100095)(<wbr>400001002070)(400125200095);<span class=""><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Jean Guillon<br>
6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle<br>
92120 Montrouge<br>
France<br>
<br>
Phone: <a href="tel:+33%206%2031%2010%2098%2037" value="+33631109837" target="_blank">+33.631109837</a><br>
Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon<br>
Web: <a href="http://www.guillon.com" target="_blank">www.guillon.com</a></font></span><span class=""><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>