[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Subsequent Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Sat Jan 5 08:49:58 UTC 2019

Dear Justine,

thank you very much for putting together slides with Neustar's
proposals. I must admit that these slides made me feel particularly
uneasy about the whole process of subsequent procedures. Without
prejudice, here we have the Chair of the working group, main driver of
the working group moving forward, ex-Neustar and currently working for
Valideus, a company that stands to capitalise significantly in the
creation of brand TLDs, pushing a calendar that is suggested by his
ex-firm, favouring his current firm. I cannot stop seeing a flashing
sign telling me "conflict of interest" here.

At ICANN Studienkreis and elsewhere, Cherine Chalaby has been asking the
community about the need for a fast next round, and the majority of
people around the table, whether end users, businesses, registrars and
established registries said they were not eager for an immediate next
round. It is only companies that stand to benefit directly from new
gTLDs, such as the service providers that have flourished to help with
TLD applications (and independent consultants), or register brands, or
apply a city TLD business model that they have already applied
elsewhere, who are pushing for a next round.

I am not against a next round, but when I see an illustration on page 4
saying "brand TLDs" with an application window 1st Oct 2919 to 12 Jan
2020 (even though there is an asterisk saying proposed dates are
illustrative only), this worries me as a way to circulate potential
dates for next round. That is, again, putting the carriage before the

That said, on the actual concept of three phase model, and irrespective
of the above, I am not against the concept of phases, but I do not agree
with the proposed phases themselves. Phase 1, brands, sound okay, except
for those brands that are geographic names. I would argue that Community
TLDs should not be batched with generic TLDs and should be prioritised
before GeoTLDs. So Community TLDs should go to phase 2 and Geo TLDs
could go to phase 3. I would also say that I have seen significant
pushback on generic TLDs that are based on generic words, so I really
wonder how that is going to pan out.

Kindest regards,


On 05/01/2019 09:08, Justine Chew wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Greetings for the New Year 2019.
> During one of the SubPro PDP Sub-Group's review of community
> submissions received for the Public Comment on the Initial Report on
> the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (Overarching Issues & Work
> Tracks 1-4) (which concluded on 26 Sep 2018), that WG's Co-Chair, Jeff
> Neuman, requested that SO/AC liaisons obtain from their stakeholder
> groups _feedback on a proposal by Neustar for the (next) New gTLD
> Program applications to be conducted in three phases followed by an
> open round_.
> *Details of Neustar's proposal are contained in the attached slide deck. *
> I invite you to provide feedback on the same by:-
> 1) Replying to this email (or to me privately, if you prefer);
> 2) Starting a separate email thread to cpwg at icann.org
> <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> if you wish to discuss a specific aspect of
> the said proposal; and/or
> 3) Joining the next CPWG call (tentatively on 9 Jan 2019, please look
> out for a notice from At-Large staff for this call)  
> Thank you.
> Justine Chew 
> -----
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190105/c527c716/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org

More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list