[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair

[David Ackerman]

Yes, organizations such as mine, New York University, unaware of the first
round, had an expectation that we would have to wait 2 or 3 years. So, it
didn't seem too bad.

After 3 years, 2015, I was told 3 more years. Now, after 4 years, it's
going to be 4 more years? Bad pattern here!

We really need our gTLD to do our global business. And we are now
impatient, and I have complained broadly.

I completely agree with the comment:

   - eight years between rounds is incongruent with the goal of a smoothly
   running, well-managed process; in fact, it is embarrassing for the whole
   multistakeholder model




On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:

> In response to Paul:
>
> First, it has nothing to do with application fees.
>
> During the ICANN meeting in Helsinki there were a number of comments on
> the topic of timing of the next round made to the ICANN Board in public
> fora. The comments were mostly eloquent, on the mark and included the
> following points:
>
>    - one of the conditions to launching the 2012 round was to have
>    another round in a short period of time to afford the same opportunity to
>    those that might not be reached by the ICANN communications in time
>    - eight years between rounds is incongruent with the goal of a
>    smoothly running, well-managed process; in fact, it is embarrassing for the
>    whole multistakeholder model
>    - there is no point of accountability (person, department,
>    organization) for getting the next round launched in a timely matter
>    - the set of postulated, highly dreaded, highly harmful outcomes as a
>    result of new gTLDs did not materialize
>    - we spent years developing the current policy and its implementation
>    model, the path to a close-in-time next round could never be to re-examine
>    every aspect of that policy but rather to make mid-course corrections on
>    the areas needing that
>
> In my opinion, some or all of these points evidently resonated with the
> Board. I believe the letter was the result of those interchanges at the
> Helsinki meeting.
>
> Kurt
>
>
> --------- Original Message ---------
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council
> Chair
> From: policy at paulmcgrady.com
> Date: 8/16/16 1:05 pm
> To: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"
> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> Thanks Jeff.
>
> Is there any indication of why this letter was sent?  Is it pressure from
> groups wanting another round for business reasons?  Is ICANN in need of
> more application money?  I don't mind feeling under a bit of pressure from
> the Board to move with all due speed, but I'd like to understand the "why"
> here.  Any thoughts (from you or from the list)?
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council
> Chair
> From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> Date: Tue, August 09, 2016 10:45 am
> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>
> Resending as I mistakenly put Volker on this email as opposed to Donna.
> Sorry for the duplication.
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA*| *Com Laude USA*
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
>
>
> *From:* Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:44 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Cc:* James Bladel (jbladel at godaddy.com) <jbladel at godaddy.com>; Heather
> Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>; Volker Greimann <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> *Subject:* Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair
>
> All,
>
> I came across this letter in passing and thought it was useful to send to
> the group as it relates to our work.  One of the items I would like to ask
> each work track to think about is the key question raised here:, namely
> within the work tracks, “Are there a set of critical issues that can be
> identified to be addressed prior to a new application process?”  Or, is it
> the view of the Community that the entire PDP must be completed prior to a
> new process?
>
> I believe the identification of these issues is a critical first step of
> the work tracks and will help to produce work plans for the respective
> tracks.  I am cc’ing GNSO Council leadership on this email to keep them in
> the loop.
>
> Best regards,
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA*| *Com Laude USA*
> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> T: +1.703.635.7514
> M: +1.202.549.5079
> @Jintlaw
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing
> list Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
> listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20160817/71a3a6ae/attachment.html>