[Newgtld-input] (no subject)

Maria Kolesnikova masha at cctld.ru
Thu Aug 16 09:10:05 UTC 2012

On behalf of Andrei Kolesnikov, CEO, Coordination Center for TLD RU:

1. As ICANN received 1,930 applications for new gTLDs, while the 
annual number of to be delegated ones is set at a level of 1,000,
all the applications should be classified into two batches with the 
gap between their term of delegation being 1 year.
According to preliminary estimates, the applied-for gTLDs from the 
first batch might be delegated in late 2013, and, subsequently, the 
second batch might be delegated within 2014.
2.	Yes, we believe it is possible to grant the applicants with extra 
time between the publication of application evaluation results and the 
launch of the Transition to Delegation stage. That would enable them 
to complete complementary organizational activities to get their 
websites, SRSs, set of policies, etc. for the start of fully 
functional operations in the capacity of Registry Operator of the 
applied-for new gTLD, if needed.
3.	We propose a simultaneous publication of all the application 
evaluation results (at the end of Initial Evaluation). This is the 
most critical matter for the applicants. The applications should be 
broken into two groups: 1) the ones included in the Contention sets 
and 2) non-competing applications.
4.	As concerns non-competing applications, we believe it is imperative 
to consider in the first batch the following ones: 1) community-based 
applications, as they exhibit an emerged need of a strictly identified 
community in such a gTLD; 2) geoTLDs, as they display an official 
support and keenness to have such a domain by the respective 
Government and the geographic community; 3) gTLDs whose mission 
statements explicitly hold they are socially significant open 
projects. While such domains may fall short of representing a clearly 
identified community, they appear critical for boosting the diversity 
of ways the Internet is used by various social groups (e.g. .ДЕТИ 
That said, we think that where gTLDs matching the above criteria prove 
to be IDNs, this should be considered an extra plus, for IDNs are 
particularly important to developing nations and countries where 
English is not widely spoken. That is to say, where there have been 
submitted applications with equal potential, in the course of their 
processing priority should be given to IDNs.
5.	It is applications for “close-end” gTLDs that are set to service 
corporate needs or brands which should be granted the lowest priority 
and be delegated in the second batch. Such gTLDs include those wherein 
registration of the 2nd - and 3rd-level domains is narrowed to a very 
selected array of users and/or where the Registry Operator (which 
concurrently exercises the Registrar’s functions) is going to register 
domains solely for its own needs.
As well, the second batch should also include all competing 
applications (Contention sets) and those opted-out by applicants ready 
to postpone their delegation for a year.
6.	We believe the contract execution, pre-delegation testing or 
delegation phases should not be used to classify the applications into 
batches. Rather, these phases should be implemented per the 
description in AGB, RA and IANA procedure. Since the moment of signing 
Registry Agreement, the new gTLD Registry Operator should be fully 
ready, both organizationally and technically, to exercise its 
functions and interact with its customers. So, it seems inappropriate 
to split these phases in a special way.

More information about the Newgtld-input mailing list