[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Martin Sutton
martin at brandregistrygroup.org
Mon May 15 14:41:34 UTC 2017
Hi Volker,
I think you are making too many presumptions including any potential dilution of barriers of entry. Let's use the facts of the 2012 round to improve the policies and processes.
Kind regards,
Martin
Sent from my iPhone
On 15 May 2017, at 16:16, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict?
As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process?
We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time.
Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Martin
100% agree
I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored.
After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed.
For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/
https://blacknight.blog/
https://ceo.hosting/
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org><mailto: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
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
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<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________
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/ab073c58/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list