<div dir="ltr"><div><span><span><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">Dear All </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:7pt">I have received the above
surprising message which seems GNSO and ICANN advokating contention</span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:7pt">"<i> message </i></span></u><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">There will be LOT’s of
contention</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">: </span></u></i><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">And that is good –</span></i></b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"> it’s competition; and
competition drives innovation </span></u></i><i><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">and is healthy</span></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">.</span></u></i></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue">Comments</span></u><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">¨</span></u></i></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Not every body expect to live with contention???</font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><font face="Calibri"><font size="3"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red">“ That is good “ </span></u><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue">It may be good for SOME PEOPLE <span> </span>and
not for every body??</span></u></font></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Contention is not a driving for innovation and it is not good nor
healthy at all</font></span></u></b></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue"><font face="Calibri">.</font></span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">·</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process
all these 10,000 applications</span></u></i></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3">What is the basis for that processing period?
where people have got that information?</font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3">At least I can not <span> </span>envisage <span> </span>the conmplexity or otherwise of any of those
10000 strings</font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">·</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY
to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time).</span></u></i></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3"> </font></span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Whom <span> </span>referred as </span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:red;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">"WE"</span></u></i></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3">People may speak for themselves only or for any one
supporting them and NOT for others </font></span></u></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3"> So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for
strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few
month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date.</font></span></u></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal"><font size="3"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:blue;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">it seems <span> </span>an
individual now decides <span> </span>for icann</span></u><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">????</span></u></i></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">·</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at
LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS”
at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else.</span></u></i></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><font size="3"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(79,129,189);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff">Where this guestimate enmanated from<i> </i></font></span></u><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">·</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></i></font></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3">So ICANN should simply
accept new applications for a year or two </font></span></u></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3"><font color="#0000ff">Who has decided so</font><em> ?</em></font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3">and allow contention to
happen.</font></span></u></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff" size="3">Why ICANN should look for
contention </font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3"><span> </span>It’s fruitful.</font></span></u></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3"><font color="#0000ff">What
is fruitful? The contention? Or the anarchy</font>? </font></span></u></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3"><span> </span>Once the round closes the strings will be made
public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3</font><sup><font size="2">rd</font></sup><font size="3"> round
have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early)</font></span></u></i></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(79,129,189);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff" size="3">Why people persuade others to apply early’to
warehouse the srtings?</font></span></u></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff" size="3">To prevent others to have access to DNS? </font></span></u></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff" size="3">To create contention ?.</font></span></u></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">But I see no
justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition
through FCFS</span></u></i></font></font></font></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><font color="#000000"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""></span></u></i></font></font><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#0000ff"> Funny</font>???</span></u><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font size="3">. </font></span></u></i></font></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff" size="3">FCFS is not innovation. It
is warehousing. </font></span></u></i></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">·</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></i></font><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#000000"><font size="3">This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3</font><sup><font size="2">rd</font></sup><font size="3">
round the 4</font><sup><font size="2">th</font></sup><font size="3"> starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously
depending on the workload of ICANN).</font></font></span></u></i></font></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3">It
is good to dream ??? and talk about 3</font><sup><font size="2">RD</font></sup><font size="3"> round, 4</font><sup><font size="2">th</font></sup><font size="3"> round
and???’</font></font><i><font color="#0000ff" size="3">…. <br>
<br>
</font></i></span></u></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">·</span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><font color="#000000">This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we
phase</font></span></u></i></font><font color="#000000"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:7pt"> </span></u></i><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">into an ongoing process.</span></u></i></font></font></p><font color="#0000ff" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#0000ff">It seems that people establishes long term strategies for the entire
community.It is interesting ???</font></span></u></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#0000ff">Regards</font></span></u></p><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:normal"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt"><font color="#0000ff">Kavouss </font></span></u></p></span></span></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"></span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Alexander Schubert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue" bgcolor="white"><div class="m_2151939287446470619WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Thought:<br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">There won’t be ANY application accepted before 2018 or 2019: Rounds or FCFS. The PDP (even if we adopted FCFS) will take that long.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of probably around 10,000 applications.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two – and allow contention to happen. It’s fruitful. Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3<sup>rd</sup> round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early). But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS. <u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3<sup>rd</sup> round the 4<sup>th</sup> starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN).<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="m_2151939287446470619MsoListParagraph"><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol;font-size:11pt"><span>·<span style="font:7pt/normal "Times New Roman";font-size-adjust:none;font-stretch:normal"> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br><br>Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Alexander<br><br><br>Please: Delete before you post ALL INDIVIDUALS and send the email ONLY to “<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>” Otherwise the individuals in CC get all emails TWICE! Also please shorten the threat every now and then. The emails get too bulky over time.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> <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>Rob Hall<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:03 PM<br><b>To:</b> Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><span><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"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Greg,<u></u><u></u></span></p><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rob.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From: </span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM<br><b>To: </b>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><br><b>Cc: </b>Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>>, Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com</a>>, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>>, Christa Taylor <<a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com" target="_blank">christa@dottba.com</a>>, Volker Greimann <<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</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>><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></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Rob,<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.<u></u><u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg<u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p><a name="m_2151939287446470619_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"></a><b><span style="color:rgb(0,46,98);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Greg Shatan<br></span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" target="_blank" value="+19178166428">917-816-6428</a><br>S: gsshatan<br></span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204);margin:5pt 0cm 5pt 4.8pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt"><div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Greg,</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Anne</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><table class="m_2151939287446470619MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:rgb(175,39,47);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">Of Counsel</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt"><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428" target="_blank">520.629.4428</a> office</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt"><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725" target="_blank">520.879.4725</a> fax</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt"><a title="Email User" href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50)">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a></span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">_____________________________</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt"><img width="115" height="46" id="m_2151939287446470619m_7189917993747013156Picture_x005f_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D2D039.2C80AF70" border="0"></span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">One South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt">Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:9pt"><a title="Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage" href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(50,50,50)">lrrc.com</span></a></span><u></u><u></u></p></td></tr><tr><td width="336" valign="top" style="padding:0cm 5.4pt;width:252pt"></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.<wbr>com</a>] <br></span><div><div class="h5"><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM<br><b>To:</b> Jeff Neuman<br><b>Cc:</b> Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; <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</div></div><u></u><u></u><p></p><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p><a name="m_2151939287446470619_m_7189917993747013156_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtml"></a><b><span style="color:rgb(0,46,98);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Greg Shatan<br></span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" target="_blank">917-816-6428</a><br>S: gsshatan<br></span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><div><div><div class="h5"><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_2151939287446470619_m_7189917993747013156_m_5249385645417693"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rob,</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br>Thanks!</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(15,147,71);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(15,147,71);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Senior Vice President </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">|</span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(195,146,9);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Valideus USA</span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(195,40,48);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">| </span><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(195,40,48);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Com Laude USA</span></b><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">Mclean, VA 22102, United States</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">E: </span><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(0,176,80);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">jeff.neuman@valideus.com</span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(89,89,89);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> or </span><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(0,176,80);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</span></a><span style="color:rgb(0,176,80);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">T: </span><a href="tel:(703)%20635-7514" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">+1.703.635.7514</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">M: </span><a href="tel:(202)%20549-5079" target="_blank"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">+1.202.549.5079</span></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:rgb(79,79,79);font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;font-size:10pt">@Jintlaw</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">gnso-newgtld-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Rob Hall<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM<br><b>To:</b> Alan Greenberg <</span><a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <</span><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">>; 'Christa Taylor' <</span><a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">christa@dottba.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">>; 'Volker Greimann' <</span><a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">vgreimann@key-systems.net</span></a><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">>; </span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></a><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC</span><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.</span><u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">As an example, would we need categories ? </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt">Rob</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p></span><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From: </span></b><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alan Greenberg <</span><a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM<br><b>To: </b>Rob Hall <</span><a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">rob@momentous.com</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <</span><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>, 'Christa Taylor' <</span><a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">christa@dottba.com</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>, 'Volker Greimann' <</span><a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">vgreimann@key-systems.net</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>, "</span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">" <</span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></a><span style="color:black;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">><span><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC</span></span><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt">Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".<span><br><br>Alan<br><br>At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt"><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Anne,<br> <br>To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.<br> <br>I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.<br> <br>However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. <br> <br>When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.<br> <br>Rob<br> <br><b>From: </b>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM<br></span><b>To: </b>'Christa Taylor' <<a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com" target="_blank">christa@dottba.com</a>>, 'Volker Greimann' <<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank">vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>, Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.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>><br><b>Subject: </b>RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<span><br> <br>What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:<br> <br>1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.<br> <br>(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)<br> <br>2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.<br> <br>3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.<br> <br>4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). <br> <br></span><span>Anne<br> <br><b>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br></b>Of Counsel<br><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428" target="_blank">520.629.4428</a> office<br><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725" target="_blank">520.879.4725</a> fax<br><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>_____________________________<br><br></span><span>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700<br>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br><a href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_blank">lrrc.com</a><br> <br></span><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Christa Taylor<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM<br><b>To:</b> 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><span><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></span><span>Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.<br> <br>Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.<br> <br>Cheers,<br> <br>Christa <br> <br></span><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.<wbr>org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Volker Greimann<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM<br><b>To:</b> Rob Hall <<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank">rob@momentous.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a> <br><span><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br> <br><br></span><span>If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.<br><br>It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". <br><br>OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.<br><br>Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Volker<br><br> <br>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:<u></u><u></u></span></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Sigh.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Rob<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">From: Volker Greimann <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">To: Rob Hall <a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com" target="_blank"><rob@momentous.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><u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?<u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Volker,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Rob<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">From: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org></a> on behalf of Volker Greimann <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM<u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">To: <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><u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> 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.<u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt"> Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.<br><br><u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">From: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@<wbr>icann.org></a> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank"><alexander@schubert.berlin></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Reply-To: <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">"alexander@schubert.berlin"</a> <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank"><alexander@schubert.berlin></a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">To: <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><u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">Rob,<u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">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†– thhe number of applications won’t change.<u></u><u></u></p><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher 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?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">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).<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">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 nnext 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 nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">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. <u></u><u></u></p></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Alexander<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> <u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></p></div></div></blockquote></div><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>