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

Marita Moll mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sat Jan 5 14:50:44 UTC 2019


I agree with the suggestions that there is an appearance of conflict of 
interest and that there is an apparent "pushing" of the dates fast 
forward. I believe, in our submission, we expressed caution about 
entering into a new round. Although the slides suggest a pent-up demand 
in the .brand category -- is there actually evidence for this?

That said, when a new round happens, this isn't a bad strategy. I like 
Tijani's reorganization of the phases though.

Marita

On 1/5/2019 6:37 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
> Justine, thanks again; This is another excellent piece of work.
>
> I tend to agree with Olivier regarding the conflict of interest of 
> Jeff. I attended the SubPro WG meeting in Barcelona, and Jeff said 
> they are preparing fpr the new application process even before the 
> whole consultation process finishes and before the final approval of 
> the Board. I asked why the rush…. I find the Neustar 
> proposal premature since it’s not yet decided if there will be 
> successive rounds or a single open round. Their proposal of a phased 
> round followed immediately by an open round gave me the impression 
> that decisions are already made.
>
> As for phased round, it might be a good thing, but I disagree with the 
> order of the phases and their nature:
>
>   * The community applications shouldn’t be combined with the generic ones
>   * I agree that the first phase can be for the dot brand  TLDs that
>     are not geo names
>   * The second phase should be for the community TLDs and applications
>     supported by the ASP since we proposed that these applications
>     should have the priority in case of string contention.
>   * 3rd phase for the geo TLDs
>   * 4th phase for the generic TLDs
>
>
> But as I said, all this is premature and will depend on the content of 
> the WG final report approved by the board (priority policy for 
> community and supported applications, kind of application rounds, etc.).
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
> +216 52 385 114
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>> Le 5 janv. 2019 à 10:47, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr 
>> <mailto:sebicann at bachollet.fr>> a écrit :
>>
>> Hello,
>> Thanks
>> I support in large part the comments of OCL
>> But it will be easier if we get the slide deck (I didn’t know why I 
>> didn’t get it - yet?)
>> All the best
>> SeB
>>
>>> Le 5 janv. 2019 à 09:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com 
>>> <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> 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 horses.
>>>
>>> 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,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>> 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
>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GTLD-WG mailing list
>>> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>>>
>>> Working Group direct URL: 
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190105/5b5e5cd6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list