[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
cw at christopherwilkinson.eu
Sat Jul 6 17:25:53 UTC 2019
Dear Cyrus Namazi :
Having reviewed your draft document, for which I thank you, circulated to the PDP at Marrakech, I would wish to record the following comments, to which I referred, on—line, during the ICANN65 PDP meetings.
In general, I find that your document heaves too closely to the idea that the next gTLD Rounds would mirror what your predecessors did in 2012. Whereas, from my point of view the whole point of the current PDP is to find better ways of doing things next time around. This should include greater attention to geographical balance, greater diversity, and ensuring as far as possible that newly delegated gTLDs will actually be used.
Words (not 'strings') , in all languages and scripts, are meanings in the public domain, contributing to communications, culture and understanding of the general public, world—wide. Until very recently, there would have been no question of the monopolization of the uses of a word. But now with Generic TLDs, this has become a very real prospect, on-line. The ICANN community has contributed massively to this fact through the single, unique Internet Root. We support the single Root for many reasons, unrelated to the gTLD programme, but we must recognise that ultimately the monopolization of words as gTLDs will undermine global support for the single Root. Accordingly, I consider that the application, delegation and use of words as gTLDs has to be handled - indeed 'regulated' – by ICANN with utmost care, not only for today's users, but also for future users in the long term. Already, our society, politics and economics have given us codes, names and other words which are particularly recognisablel. These are not 'generic' in any meaningful sense; rather the contrary.
Returning to your draft document, I would have the following more specific comments:
1. Assumptions: Your paper assumes that the next round will take the form of one large open round. There is no consensus in there PDP about moving in that direction. On the contrary, some of us have argued for several distinct, specific, windows based on pre-defined categories of TLDs. This option does not appear from your draft.
That approach would facilitate encouraging applications from previously under-served categories of applicants and helpl to ensure that evaluators and eventual arbitrators are in fact well-versed in the issues affecting each group of applications.
2. Volumes: Your paper proposes an arbitrarily large volume of new applications, all at once in a single window. That is not a model that I would share. It would give no time for, and stretch available qualified resources for, qualitative analysis and evaluation of applications, including time for consultation and – should the need arise – for eventual opposition.
On the contrary I would strongly recommend a Round that is phased, prioritised and transparent, notably to third partieds.
Outsourcing: The paper is not quite consistent: on the one hand one has 'as little as possible will be outsourced' and on the other hand one has 'evaluation and objection processing' may be outsourced 'to expert firms'… But those are precisely the functions that are most important for the credibility and accountability of te whole process, bearing in mind that the characteristics of applications may become far more diverse in several respects, compared with 2012. See also point 1, above.
4, Costs and Application Support: The paper is silent on application support, whereas in the light of the meagre outcome in 2012 in this respect, the eyes of all are upon ICANN to effectively implement a workable and results oriented application support programme. This is a question of prioritization, in time and in the budget. Ploint 1, above, refers.
There are other more detailed points arising from your paper which I would gladly discuss with you through the PDP or bilaterally. Meanwhile, I would be glad if your department would take on board the philosophy and key points that I have set out above.
With many thanks to you and your colleagues,
> From: Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi at icann.org <mailto:cyrus.namazi at icann.org>>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2019 1:33 PM
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com <mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>
> Cc: Trang Nguyen <trang.nguyen at icann.org <mailto:trang.nguyen at icann.org>>; David Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
> Subject: ICANN org's preparation toward implementation of a new round of gTLDs
> Dear Cheryl and Jeff;
> We understand that the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group expects to publish its final report with its recommendations by December 2019. As you likely know, these recommendations may lead to procedural changes for subsequent rounds of gTLD applications, which ICANN org must implement and manage.
> In the course of our preparatory work toward the planning and implementation of the new policy, ICANN org has compiled a number of fundamental operationally focused assumptions to help with the preliminary planning and operational readiness of the organization. I have shared these assumptions with the ICANN Board, and am now sharing them with all ICANN constituencies in the briefing document attached.
> If the PDP Working Group members are interested in further engagement and providing feedback and perspective on these assumptions please let me know and we will be happy to arrange a mutually convenient time for a discussion. Ideally, we could leverage the time in Marrakech for a face-to-face meeting.
> For your information, this information will also be included in the ICANN Community Digest which is planned to be issued later this week.
> Cyrus Namazi
> Senior Vice President | Global Domains Division
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 801 17th St NW, Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20006 USA
> Office +1 202 249 7543 | Mobile +1 408 421 6894
> Skype : cnamazi
> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information seewww.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com/><Pre-Engagement Comms Attachment_ Assumptions Paper 6.7.19 (1).pdf>_______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the registration-issues-wg