[bc-gnso] RE: Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook

[jarkko.ruuska at nokia.com]

Dear all,

I've expressed my opinion on this before, but I would like reject the whole Module 1: Batching of applications comment. I see that the process is designed to be self-limiting in number of ways. Trying to limit the number of applicants could result in confusion among applicants and/or lawsuits towards ICANN.

See my post from not too long ago:

I would also advise against limiting the amount of applications in this round. The rules for that would be near impossible to define (in any reasonable timeframe) and there would always be room for gaming.

I see that the new gTLD process is going to be self-limiting. There won't be any mass delegations to the root as all the applications and applicants will progress with different speeds.

Some of them will get stuck in the extended evaluation phase. Some them will be quickly approved by ICANN but will then get stuck in the Registry agreement negotiations with ICANN.  Of those who clear the negotiations a portion will get stuck in the pre-delegation testing phase. And finally many of those new gTLDS that will actually get through all the stages are not immediately delegated because of business of other reasons.  I hope that this example illustrates how many bottlenecks there can be in this process, let alone the ones that are currently unknown.

BR,

-jr


From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve DelBianco
Sent: 27. huhtikuuta 2011 21:57
To: 'bc-GNSO at icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft v1 of BC comments on latest gTLD Guidebook

Per discussion on our 21-Apr member call, here is a draft framework for BC comments on the 15-Apr-2011 Guidebook.

This comment period and docs are described at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm
These comments are due 15-May, giving us 18 days for edits, review, and approval.

For this initial draft, I updated our Dec-2010 Guidebook comments in several ways:
- Acknowledged areas where ICANN made changes consistent with BC recommendations.
- Moved all our RPM concerns to Module 5
- Asked several questions for BC members (in red)
- Added a proposed definition for "Single-Registrant TLD".   We may hold a separate call on this.

All BC members are invited to suggest edits.     Please use track changes and circulate to BC list.
I will assemble another draft version with all changes received as of May 1.

Below are the primary contributors from our Dec-2011 comments, organized by module.

Module 1: Introduction to New gTLD Application Process and Fees.  (Berry Cobb, Ron Andruff )

Module 2: Evaluation Procedures.    (Philip Sheppard, Jon Nevett,  Adam Palmer,  Zahid Jamil,  Sarah Deutsch )

Module 3: Dispute Resolution. ( John Berard, Ron Andruff )

Module 4: String Contention.   ( Ron Andruff )

Module 5: Transition to Delegation; Registry Agreement, Code of Conduct, RPMs
( Philip Sheppard, Fred Fellman,  Berry Cobb, Jon Nevett, Sarah Deutsch )


Other notes:
In our SFO comments, the BC said the new gTLD communications plan should help the world's businesses and users understand changes coming in the DNS.  But I didn't see anything in the latest Guidebook about the Communications Plan. So that comment was not reflected in the attached draft.



Steve DelBianco
vice chair for policy coordination

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20110428/7bc8f798/attachment.html>