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

Mon May 15 13:57:58 UTC 2017

Agreeing with Kurt, I followed several community application and it looked less than adequate. Majority spent $$$ to prove they have community support and this had no use and they spent again $$$ in auctions. Trademarks is even more complicate with country based system by WIPO and new trademarks becoming very known within internet out of the WIPO process; so many difficulties to establish a process that will bring confidence to the applicant.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
HAPPY 2017!

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of KURT PRITZ <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:34 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

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).

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<mailto: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<mailto: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)
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
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
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170515/adec7b6d/attachment-0001.html>