[Newgtld-input] Comments on July 29 Solicitation
bret at internet.pro
Tue Aug 21 00:08:38 UTC 2012
Dear ICANN New gTLD Program Committee:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Uniregistry, Corp., a Cayman-based applicant (ICANN Region: Europe) for fifty-four (54) top-level domains, in response to ICANN's applicant solicitation of 29 July 2012. According to the Roadmap published on Friday, we understand that the window for comments is open through the end of today.
In response to the issues raised by ICANN, Uniregistry wishes to make the following points:
* We believe that the most efficient process flow would allow reviewed and approved applications to move forward along whatever path they would take post-evaluation as soon as they were adjudged as "passed." Once ICANN has reviewed enough applications to establish its baselines for passing and quality control, it should inform the applicants of the results and release the results to the public.
* We favor of an ungated process that allows passed applications to move forward beyond the evaluation stage as soon as their evaluation is complete.
* Batching has long been a core component of the application process, and we do not believe consensus existed for single batch. To the extent the Board believed that such consensus existed in Prague, we do not believe it took account of the view of Uniregistry or other proponents of an ungated or batched release process. Based on our discussions with other applicants, we believe that applicants representing a majority of submitted applications favor a continuous release over a single batch.
* We believe that the order in which ICANN reviews applications should not favor any type of applicant or business model.
* Random selection of applications for review should not present legal issues now, after the application window has closed. While the window was still open, random selection for batches would have given applicants an incentive to file multiple redundant applications, withdrawing all but the application that placed earliest in the random queue and creating a kind of lottery for early slots. Now that no one can file an additional application, that lottery problem is gone.
* Applicants who applied for multiple strings, including Uniregistry, should have the ability to prioritize their own applications for ICANN.
* Pre-delegation testing for registry back-ends should begin as soon as possible. Pre-delegation registry testing should not be dependent on an application passing evaluation. We believe that ICANN should take as many of the pre-delegation testing steps as possible now, pre-accrediting the registry back-ends, so that when an applicant passes, the bulk of this work is complete. Allowing this process to move forward early is especially important if ICANN holds to the concept of a single batch.
* Applicants should be able to tender to ICANN's legal department the form of the registry agreement they wish to sign as soon as possible, so ICANN legal can begin the process of pre-approving the form so it is ready for execution as soon as possible following the release of evaluation results. Allowing this process to move forward early is especially important if ICANN holds to the concept of a single batch.
We believe that these principles will allow for a timely, efficient and fair evaluation of all applications. Thank you for considering our input into the issues raised.
On behalf of Uniregistry, Corp.
Bret Fausett, Esq.
Internet Pro APC
4640 Admiralty Way, 5th Floor
Marina del Rey, California 90292
(310) 496-5755 (Office) | (310) 985-1351 (Mobile)
bret at internet.pro<mailto:bret at internet.pro> | www.internet.pro<http://www.internet.pro/>
PGP Key Published at https://keyserver.pgp.com<https://keyserver.pgp.com/>
S/MIME Encryption Upon Request
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please email sender and delete all copies of this message.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To insure compliance with requirements by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
More information about the Newgtld-input