[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Thanks John.  As mentioned on the call and in my email, it is not an objection to having two different tracks.   And I am not insisting on the old system.   The objection is to charging applicants more for making applications that propose new services - that language is in the new straw person.  Charging more for applications that propose new services runs counter to the stated purpose of the new gTLD program, i.e. to encourage innovation and competition.

I also object to delaying discussion of new services to the contracting phase.   I believe these new services form part of the evaluation process.
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com
_______________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl at iecc.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person

> Well here we are definitely establishing a disincentive to proposing
> new innovative services.  We are saying in this straw proposal that if
> you propose new services, it is going to cost you more to apply and we
> don't know how much more.  This is a terrible idea running a program
> which is otherwise touted as fostering innovation and competition.

I was one of the people who evaluated the registry services in the current round, and I can say that a list of pre-approved services is an excellent idea.  In this round, most service proposals were cut and pasted from boilerplate provided by a handful of backend registries, and we spent a lot of time effectively looking for cut and paste errors.  (I wrote some text comparison tools to speed it up.)  Then when we found such errors, there'd be a round or two of negotiation to fix them, generally just changing the text to what it should have been in the first place.  There were some services that were actually different and needed skilled evaluation but they were a small minority.

The alternative to some services approved quickly and some evaluated slowly is to have them all evaluated slowly again.  I don't see how that would help anyone other than running up the billable hours for us evaluators.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly


________________________________

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.