[Newgtld-input] (no subject)
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