<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph, li.m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph, div.m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:m_2151939287446470619msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1312247586;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:734687366 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1894191259;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1966568934 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Dear Kavouss,<br><br>as you quote some of my “thoughts” I might answer directly:<br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The reason why we (this group) have to guestimate the application volume, time ICANN needs to process that volume and next “rounds” (or other mechanisms) is that without any metrics (and being it wild guesses) nobody can plan. Part of the exercise of open exchange in a mailing list like this one is to build an opinion. Obviously it is guesswork – but guesswork is better than no basis for planning at all. The reason why we talk about the application mechanism AFTER the 2<sup>nd</sup> round is that this is what we are mandated with: finding a procedure how in the future new gTLDs are added to the DNS. That is NOT just tied to the next round. This PDP is NOT a “second round PDP” – and afterwards we start a “third round PDP”. Unless of course we decide to do so. Hence we are discussing what happens AFTER the 2<sup>nd</sup> round.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>·<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Regarding “First Come First Serve” (FCFS) vs. “pooling to allow for competition to happen”: Everybody is free to put forward their opinion on that. The Internet has so far evolved so quickly and in such creative ways because almost EVERY ASPECT about it was shaped by competition. The only area that couldn’t evolve was the DNS – and we strive to end that. Unfortunately each string in the DNS is “unique” – whereas everything else in the Internet can be copied and made better: Social Networks, Ride Share Networks or ISPs for example. If you are allocating a unique resource that can only be allocated ONCE: Then (in my humble opinion) let AT LEAST at the point of allocation competition happen. IF there IS competition within a reasonable frame of time. Hence my proposal to allow for pooling where it doesn’t slow down the process (e.g. because ICANN needs X years to process the 2<sup>nd</sup> round) – and once we see that pooling doesn’t resolve in competition anymore: switch to an ongoing process.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Btw; here an information about the “.com” 2<sup>nd</sup> level namespace and allocation of names – and what happens to “name spaces” in the “real world”: <br>Everybody knows that all two and three letter .com domains are taken since ages. But there are 456,976 four letter combinations out there – and surely not all of them are registered as .com domain? After all: who desires a domain like xyqv.com? Well: Since 2013 ALL of these 460,000 llll.com are taken! Many not even routed at all. It is a “FIAT CURRENCY” of sorts. Not “demand” drove registrations – it was the other way around: Registrations were done to drive the price! If you deplete a certain resource (here 4 letter .com domains) then that FORCES people to buy for top Dollars at the secondary market.<br>gTLDs are domains, too: At the top level. I would honestly not be utterly surprised if somebody would sweep up at least all “premium letter” “.lll” gTLDs (that would be about 5,800 gTLD strings as there are 18 premium letters). It would be a US $145 Million “investment” if the application fees came down to US $50k. It is quite easy to imagine that these US $145 Million would be recovered SPEEDY in “private contention resolution” procedures directly after the “reveal”: You just need to find 145 companies (and GEOs, etc) who would quietly pay you a Million each in order to avoid delays and auctions, etc. After having sold 145 of your 5,800 strings you start to make profit – and you never have to really rely on earning A DIME with actually “running” any of these gTLDs. <br>Now when you would run the 2<sup>nd</sup> round in a FCFS style: I can assure you that somebody who shells out THAT money can EASILY create a technical solution to get through their applications ahead of everybody else. Remember the 2005 introduction of .eu domains? People rented servers in the same datacenter where the EURID’s servers were placed – the competition was INSANE. And those were just .eu domains – not GTLDs. Or the “ll.de” introduction in Germany 2010? MAYHAM broke out. Pure insanity – all because FCFS.<br>In short: When you eliminate any and all mechanisms of “pooling” (and the resulting competition afterwards) by using FCFS you run the risk of people snacking up (for example) the important portion of the premium letter “.lll” namespace – then they can sit tight and charge organizations, companies, cities, etc an arm and a leg to buy these string from them. <br><br>This is just one horror scenario I made up – I am sure others can make up better ones. FCFS invites criminal practices – just study the .eu sunrise and landrush disaster (btw I warned them 6 month upfront – they simply didn’t want to hear it – just didn’t cared). Pooling (at least as long as there is contention) eases the pain and risk A LOT.<br><br>Thanks for hearing me out,<br><br>Alexander <br><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><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'> Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:15 AM<br><b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin; Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Dear All </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>I have received the above surprising message which seems GNSO and ICANN advokating contention</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>"<i> message </i></span></u><i><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>There will be LOT’s of contention</span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'>: </span></u></i><b><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>And that is good –</span></i></b><i><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'> it’s competition; and competition drives innovation </span></u></i><i><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>and is healthy</span></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'>.</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Comments</span></u><i><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'>¨</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Not every body expect to live with contention???</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:red'>“ That is good “ </span></u><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>It may be good for SOME PEOPLE and not for every body??</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><b><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>Contention is not a driving for innovation and it is not good nor healthy at all</span></u></b><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:blue'>.</span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>·</span><span style='color:#222222'> </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>What is the basis for that processing period? where people have got that information?</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>At least I can not envisage the conmplexity or otherwise of any of those 10000 strings</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>·</span><span style='color:#222222'> </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time).</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Whom referred as </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red'>"WE"</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>People may speak for themselves only or for any one supporting them and NOT for others </span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> 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.</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>it seems an individual now decides for icann</span></u><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>????</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>·</span><span style='color:#222222'> </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Where this guestimate enmanated from<i> </i></span></u><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>·</span><span style='color:#222222'> </span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two </span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Who has decided so</span></u><em><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> ?</span></u></em><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>and allow contention to happen.</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Why ICANN should look for contention </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> It’s fruitful.</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>What is fruitful? The contention? Or the anarchy</span></u><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>? </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3</span></u></i><i><u><sup><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'>rd</span></sup></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#222222'> round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early)</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Why people persuade others to apply early’to warehouse the srtings?</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>To prevent others to have access to DNS? </span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>To create contention ?.</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> Funny???<i>. </i></span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>FCFS is not innovation. It is warehousing. </span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>·</span><span style='color:blue'> </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3</span></u></i><i><u><sup><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>rd</span></sup></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> round the 4</span></u></i><i><u><sup><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>th</span></sup></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN).</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>It is good to dream ??? and talk about 3</span></u><u><sup><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>RD</span></sup></u><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> round, 4</span></u><u><sup><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>th</span></sup></u><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'> round and???’<i>…. </i></span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>·</span><span style='color:blue'> </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase</span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'> </span></u></i><i><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>into an ongoing process.</span></u></i><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>It seems that people establishes long term strategies for the entire community.It is interesting ???</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Regards</span></u><o:p></o:p></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:0cm;background:white'><u><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:blue'>Kavouss </span></u><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2017-05-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Thought:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of probably around 10,000 applications.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=m2151939287446470619msolistparagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt'> </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br><br>Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentColor currentColor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-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>><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</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Greg,</span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Rob.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentColor currentColor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>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</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Rob,</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p><a name="m_2151939287446470619_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtml"></a><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002E62'>Greg Shatan<br></span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>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='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1155CC'>gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:currentColor currentColor currentColor rgb(204,204,204)'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Greg,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Anne</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style='border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#AF272F'>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese</span></b><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'>Of Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428" target="_blank">520.629.4428</a> office</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725" target="_blank">520.879.4725</a> fax</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank" title="Email User"><span style='color:#323232'>AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'>_____________________________</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=115 height=46 id="m_2151939287446470619m_7189917993747013156Picture_x005f_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D2D179.D87A2FE0"></span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#323232'>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><a href="http://lrrc.com/" target="_blank" title="Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie Webpage"><span style='color:#323232'>lrrc.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr><tr><td width=336 valign=top style='width:252.0pt;padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'></td></tr></table><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif'> Greg Shatan [mailto:<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>] </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><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<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>Greg</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p><a name="m_2151939287446470619_m_7189917993747013"><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#002E62'>Greg Shatan<br></span></b></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'>C: </span><a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>917-816-6428</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black'><br>S: gsshatan<br></span><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1155CC'>gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Rob,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><br>Thanks!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#0F9347'>Jeffrey J. Neuman</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#0F9347'>Senior Vice President </span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>|</span><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C39209'>Valideus USA</span></b><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C32830'> </span></b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>| </span><b><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#C32830'>Com Laude USA</span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>Mclean, VA 22102, United States</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>E: </span><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050'>jeff.neuman@valideus.com</span></a><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#595959'> or </span><a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050'>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#00B050'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>T: </span><a href="tel:(703)%20635-7514" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>+1.703.635.7514</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>M: </span><a href="tel:(202)%20549-5079" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif'>+1.202.549.5079</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;color:#4F4F4F'>@Jintlaw</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentColor currentColor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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'> </span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>] <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-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <</span><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>AAikman@lrrc.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; 'Christa Taylor' <</span><a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>christa@dottba.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; 'Volker Greimann' <</span><a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>vgreimann@key-systems.net</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>; </span><a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>As an example, would we need categories ? </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Rob</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm;border-color:currentColor currentColor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>From: </span></b><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>><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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>, "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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>, '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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>, '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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>>, "</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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>" <</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='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black'>><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>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".<br><br>Alan<br><br>At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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><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<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>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>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><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-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><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>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><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-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><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>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:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Sigh.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Rob<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>From: Volker Greimann <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Volker,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Rob<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>From: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf of Volker Greimann <a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net" target="_blank"><vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'> Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>From: <a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank"><alexander@schubert.berlin></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>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><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>Rob,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>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?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>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).<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'>Alexander<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br>_______________________________________________<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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>