[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Demys input

[David Krizanic]

Hello,

as per the invitation to comment on the subsequent procedures we submit our
input and suggestions. Please do get in touch if any of our points have not
been expressed clearly and/or need further explanation.

1.1.1 We would suggest approved RSPs have their own version of "EBERO" in
their pre-validation process/accreditation and remove that as part of the
Registry Agreement altogether if a "known"/prevalidated registry service
provider is used, thus removing another redundancy double-checking
per-application, if not removing the COI, EBERO, Data Escrow entirely as
per answer 2.3.1. The reason to single out EBERO under the RSP model is
they are generally acting as RSP for multiple registry operators and if the
technical registry backend were to fail there is no call for having
multiple separate agreements with each registry operator as that would only
make things more difficult.

1.4.1 We suggest a TLD-type approach is considered, where an open-generic,
closed-generic, brand, community are all priced at their reasonable fee.
There are significant differences in the evaluation of these different
types of TLDs and therefore the costs incurred by ICANN are also
significantly different.

1.4.2 Considering a TLD-type model as suggested, and based on our own
experience with a brand TLD, there was far too much overhead with the
application that did not apply to a brand, all of which, if removed, would
reduce the cost of a brand application substantially. In the case of using
a pre-approved RSP the checks and tests required are also removed therefore
removing another resource cost from ICANN, further justifying the reduction
of application fees.

1.5.1 Yes, the fee should depend on the expected workload to process that
application. Community evaluations or contention set resolutions require
more resource from ICANN than a non-contested dot brand application. If our
other suggestions in 2.3.1, 1.1.1, 4.3.2.4 are also considered, then a dot
brand application would amount to a small fraction of work required to
validate a comparable generic application. Applying the RSP model and
removing the need for PDT and technical evaluation further justifies
reducing the fee. We suggest using a continuously open application system,
where the cost is defined per-application-type and a separate fee payable
on top if the TLD becomes contested during the application hold term. This
will allow lowering fees for uncontested strings and cover the costs of
contention resolution in cases where a contention is, but avoid
over-charging and making a surplus from applications where it is not
justified. For example; a TLD is applied for by party 1, this TLD is then
placed on hold for 3/6 months. If during this term another application is
received from party 2 the TLD becomes contested, requiring all involved
parties to pay an additional fee to resolve the contention set or allow any
parties to cancel their application. Conversely, where no contention is
found the TLD can simply proceed through the normal delegation process.

1.5.2 We see no negative implications to differentiating application types.
Throughout the previous round they were informally categorized or defined
on-the-fly during the application process. Formalizing this categorization
would provide the much needed clarity that plagued the previous round.
Additionally, beneficial effects would be gained, namely reduced evaluation
complexity, costs and time.

1.6 We suggest a continuously available application system, eliminating the
need for rounds entirely. A way to avoid potentially malicious attempts is
to publish the applied-for TLDs immediately at their application and keep
them on hold for 3 (or so) months (length as per 'rounds' windows
suggestions) during which time a rival applicant may apply.

1.7.1 During a continuously available application system brands and
communities should still be prioritized if applied for within the
application window as of the first received application for that TLD.

2.3.1 Brand TLDs should be exempt from the requirements for an EBERO, COI
or Data Escrow. As soon as the brand TLD is unable to meet its commitments
it is only harming a single registrant and therefore itself. The true
purpose of all these measures is to protect an end-user of a domain in the
case of the registry business failing to operate. When the only end-user is
the RO as well, these measures do not protect anyone.

4.3.2.4 We agree with the assertion, since the business model of a brand
registry is not at-all for-profit, there is no reason why a model needs to
exist. A brand applicant should only need to demonstrate that it is able to
meet its financial commitments to ICANN.

    Additional questions:

2. As stated before, we would suggest a continuously open application
period (at least for brand TLDs if not across the board) where a TLD can be
applied for at any time, and is then placed on-hold to see if a rival
application is submitted within 3 (6 or so, as per community consensus)
months. This would allow time for rival applications to be put forward if
necessary and remove the need to wait for 8 years before a TLD can be
applied for.

Best Regards,
David Krizanic
Chief Technology Officer

Demys Limited, 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7JF
Telephone: +44 (0) 131 226 0660
Demys Limited is a company registered in Scotland under number SC197176

-------------------------------------
Follow us on twitter @DemysLtd
www.demys.com
-------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachments/20170509/df77d9c9/attachment.html>