[Newgtld-input] Comments of Geographical Names gTLD Applicants

Ronald Schwärzler Ronald.Schwaerzler at punktwien.at
Thu Aug 16 09:54:38 UTC 2012


Ladies and Gentlemen,

Being CEO of punkt.wien GmbH, the company that applied for ".wien" gTLD I (in brief) encourage you to transfer any applications to next stages as soon as possible!

Best regards

DI Ronald Schwärzler
Geschäftsführer

[cid:AD5061F9-C0C2-4E00-86AE-7CC556DA5B57]

punkt.wien GmbH
ronald.schwaerzler at punktwien.at
A-1141 Wien, Matznergasse 17, Tel. +43 1 98116-101, Mobile +43 681 20895522, Fax +43 1 98116-118
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Wien; Firmenbuchgericht: Handelsgericht Wien, FN 367498p

Diese E-Mail inklusive aller Anhänge ist vertraulich und könnte bevorrechtigtem Schutz unterliegen. Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte Adressat sind, informieren Sie
bitte den Absender unverzüglich, löschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System und veröffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich zu welchem Zweck
Notice: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, destroy all
copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any purpose.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The following comment is a joint comment of the signing applicants who applied for a New gTLD that is a Geographical Name.

Introduction
Geographical Name gTLDs have Governmental Support
Geographical Names as gTLDs are clearly defined by the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, paragraph 2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support. Geographical Name gTLDs (Geo-TLDs in the following) have in common that the string is a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a geographical name that is protected by national laws. Geo-TLDs have also in common that the respective operator for the string is or is being supported by the relevant sovereign local and national government(s). By these least common denominators the Geo-TLDs are in the Public Interest.
66 Applicants claimed the “Geographical Name” status
As of 13 June 2012 66 applications that claimed the Geographical Name Top-Level Domains status have been published. The Geo-TLD applications range from TLDs for large cities and regions to small cultural and language TLDs. The applicants and respective gTLD operators range from governments to non-for-profit entities and commercial companies. The business models range from a single registrant regime (only for use by the government) via restricted registrations (only for individuals of the community) to free domain name registrations for everyone.
Geo-TLDs have already expressed their opinion to ICANN
At least a dozen City and Regional Governments have written to ICANN during the last months to support a preferred processing of Geo-TLDs but ICANN neither published these letters nor gave a feedback.
In order to follow ICANN’s request to answer specific questions on processing applications we would like to comment as follows:

Should the metering or smoothing consider releasing evaluation results, and transitioning applications into the contract execution and pre-delegation testing phases, at differenttimes?
In order to facilitate a smooth implementation of new gTLDs into the root, uncontested applications that have been successfully evaluated should immediately be directed to “Transition to Delegation” including publication of the evaluation results for the publicly available part of the applications. A simultaneous release of evaluation results of all applications is unnecessary and contraproductive since it creates further delays for applicants.

How can applications be allocated to particular release times in a fair and equitable way?
A fair and equitable way would be to delegate applications in an order that serves the public interest. Such an order should prioritize uncontested applications that have a special public interest status such as a) Geographical Name, b) Community or c) IDN. The sequencing for delegation should follow a round-robin process per ICANN region.
As a second step an ICANN region based round-robin should be conducted with uncontested applications from single applicants and portfolio applicants who can choose one string as their preferred one, assuming this string has neither objections nor contention.
The round-robin will be continued as long as necessary. Applications in extended evaluation, objection, contention and with GAC interaction will be added to the round-robin pool as soon as their objection and/or contention has been completed.
Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation rate?
Our described approach would not only serve the public interest and take the interests of all applicants into respect, it would also allow creating new gTLD success stories for ICANN. Such events are desperately needed to reinforce public interest, trust and reliability in ICANN and are according to ICANN’s mission.
Should the metering or smoothing be accomplished by downstream metering of application processing (i.e., in the contract execution, pre-delegation testing or delegation phases)?
With the proposed public interest priorization and followed by a round-robin method we do not expect any necessity to downstream delegation rates.
Additionally all applicants should be asked if they want to “opt out” with the consequence of being initially evaluated at a later stage. This could significantly decrease the number of applications to be reviewed in the first instance.
How can applications be allocated to a particular timing in contract execution, pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable way?
ICANN should forward applications in the “transition to delegation” status as soon as possible after they have been reviewed successfully in order to facilitate a smooth introduction of new TLDs into the root.
Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.
The questions should be asked the other way around. Are there any valid reasons why the publication of evaluation results should be withheld to a certain “reveal date”? Therefore ICANN should process gTLDs down the path as they are ready for the next step.
Include a statement describing the level of importance that the order of evaluation and delegation has for your application.
Geo-TLDs are very well accepted and popular new gTLD strings, this is common opinion within the ICANN community including GAC. In terms of business planning an early approval of Geo-TLDs is likely to contribute to a maximum economic and political success of the New gTLD program and ICANN’s reputation as well.


-------------- next part --------------

   Ladies and Gentlemen,

   Being CEO of punkt.wien GmbH, the company that applied for ".wien" gTLD I
   (in brief) encourage you to transfer any applications to next stages as soon
   as possible!

   Best regards

   DI Ronald Schwärzler
   Geschäftsführer
   [cid:AD5061F9-C0C2-4E00-86AE-7CC556DA5B57]
   punkt.wien GmbH
   ronald.schwaerzler at punktwien.at
   A-1141 Wien, Matznergasse 17, Tel. +43 1 98116-101, Mobile +43 681 20895522,
   Fax +43 1 98116-118
   Sitz der Gesellschaft: Wien; Firmenbuchgericht: Handelsgericht Wien, FN
   367498p
   Diese  E-Mail  inklusive  aller  Anhänge  ist  vertraulich  und könnte
   bevorrechtigtem Schutz  unterliegen.  Wenn Sie nicht der beabsichtigte
   Adressat sind, informieren Sie
   bitte den Absender unverzüglich, löschen Sie alle Kopien von Ihrem System
   und veröffentlichen Sie oder nutzen Sie die Information keinesfalls, gleich
   zu welchem Zweck
   Notice:  This  e-mail  and any attachments are confidential and may be
   privileged. If  you  are not the intended recipient, notify the sender
   immediately, destroy all
   copies from your system and do not disclose or use the information for any
   purpose.

   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

   The following comment is a joint comment of the signing applicants who
   applied for a New gTLD that is a Geographical Name.



   Introduction

   Geographical Name gTLDs have Governmental Support 

   Geographical  Names as gTLDs are clearly defined by the gTLD Applicant
   Guidebook,  paragraph  2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government
   Support. Geographical Name gTLDs (Geo-TLDs in the following) have in common
   that  the  string  is a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a
   geographical name that is protected by national laws. Geo-TLDs have also in
   common that the respective operator for the string is or is being supported
   by the relevant sovereign local and national government(s). By these least
   common denominators the Geo-TLDs are in the Public Interest.

   66 Applicants claimed the “Geographical Name” status 

   As  of 13 June 2012 66 applications that claimed the Geographical Name
   Top-Level Domains status have been published. The Geo-TLD applications range
   from TLDs for large cities and regions to small cultural and language TLDs.
   The applicants and respective gTLD operators range from governments to
   non-for-profit entities and commercial companies. The business models range
   from  a  single registrant regime (only for use by the government) via
   restricted registrations (only for individuals of the community) to free
   domain name registrations for everyone.

   Geo-TLDs have already expressed their opinion to ICANN

   At least a dozen City and Regional Governments have written to ICANN during
   the last months to support a preferred processing of Geo-TLDs but ICANN
   neither published these letters nor gave a feedback.

   In  order  to  follow  ICANN’s request to answer specific questions on
   processing applications we would like to comment as follows:


   Should the metering or smoothing consider releasing evaluation results, and
   transitioning applications into the contract execution and pre-delegation
   testing phases, at differenttimes?

   In order to facilitate a smooth implementation of new gTLDs into the root,
   uncontested  applications that have been successfully evaluated should
   immediately be directed to “Transition to Delegation” including publication
   of  the  evaluation  results  for  the  publicly available part of the
   applications.  A  simultaneous  release  of  evaluation results of all
   applications is unnecessary and contraproductive since it creates further
   delays for applicants.


   How can applications be allocated to particular release times in a fair and
   equitable way?

   A fair and equitable way would be to delegate applications in an order that
   serves the public interest. Such an order should prioritize uncontested
   applications  that  have  a  special public interest status such as a)
   Geographical Name, b) Community or c) IDN. The sequencing for delegation
   should follow a round-robin process per ICANN region.

   As a second step an ICANN region based round-robin should be conducted with
   uncontested applications from single applicants and portfolio applicants who
   can choose one string as their preferred one, assuming this string has
   neither objections nor contention.

   The round-robin will be continued as long as necessary. Applications in
   extended evaluation, objection, contention and with GAC interaction will be
   added to the round-robin pool as soon as their objection and/or contention
   has been completed.

   Would this approach provide sufficient smoothing of the delegation rate?

   Our described approach would not only serve the public interest and take the
   interests of all applicants into respect, it would also allow creating new
   gTLD  success stories for ICANN. Such events are desperately needed to
   reinforce public interest, trust and reliability in ICANN and are according
   to ICANN’s mission.

   Should the metering or smoothing be accomplished by downstream metering of
   application processing (i.e., in the contract execution, pre-delegation
   testing or delegation phases)?

   With the proposed public interest priorization and followed by a round-robin
   method we do not expect any necessity to downstream delegation rates.

   Additionally all applicants should be asked if they want to “opt out” with
   the consequence of being initially evaluated at a later stage. This could
   significantly decrease the number of applications to be reviewed in the
   first instance.

   How  can  applications be allocated to a particular timing in contract
   execution, pre-delegation testing, or delegation in a fair and equitable
   way?

   ICANN should forward applications in the “transition to delegation” status
   as soon as possible after they have been reviewed successfully in order to
   facilitate a smooth introduction of new TLDs into the root.

   Provide reasoning for selecting this approach.

   The questions should be asked the other way around. Are there any valid
   reasons why the publication of evaluation results should be withheld to a
   certain “reveal date”? Therefore ICANN should process gTLDs down the path as
   they are ready for the next step.

   Include a statement describing the level of importance that the order of
   evaluation and delegation has for your application.

   Geo-TLDs are very well accepted and popular new gTLD strings, this is common
   opinion within the ICANN community including GAC. In terms of business
   planning an early approval of Geo-TLDs is likely to contribute to a maximum
   economic  and  political  success  of the New gTLD program and ICANN’s
   reputation as well.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: punktwien klein.png
Type: image/png
Size: 10520 bytes
Desc: punktwien klein.png
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtld-input/attachments/20120816/fb926dd7/punktwienklein.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments 19 August 2012 GeoTLDs[2].docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 27008 bytes
Desc: Comments 19 August 2012 GeoTLDs[2].docx
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/newgtld-input/attachments/20120816/fb926dd7/Comments19August2012GeoTLDs2.docx 


More information about the Newgtld-input mailing list