[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

Kurt Pritz kurt at kjpritz.com
Mon May 15 10:34:58 UTC 2017


Hi Everyone:

In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>).

It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. 

Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. 

Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. 

The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. 

In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. 

The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
 
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. 

Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. 

While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.

I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.

Best regards,

Kurt
 
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt at kjpritz.com
+1.310.400.4184
Skype: kjpritz






> On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear WG Members,
>  
> Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
>  
> 1)       Welcome/SOIs 
> 2)       Work Track Updates 
> 3)       GDD Summit Recap 
> 4)       Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>)
> 5)       Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en>
> 6)       ICANN59 Planning 
> 7)       AOB
>  
> If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>  
> Best,
> Steve
>  
>  
> Steven Chan
> 
> Sr. Policy Manager
> 
> 
>  
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
> 
> steve.chan at icann.org <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
> office tel: +1.310.301.5800
> office fax: +1.310.823.8649
>  
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
>  
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170515/8eba7f88/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list