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

[Alan Greenberg]

If we choose to have categories (which we de 
facto already did in the first round, despite the 
nomenclature) we can choose to do either or both, 
and to set the rules about whether or how a TLD can change categories.

Alan

At 16/05/2017 07:23 AM, Rob Hall wrote:
>Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
>
>Or are we talking about categories as applications.
>
>I think the distinction is important.   I can 
>see different contracts for different types of 
>TLD’s.   But not different application processes or paths.
>
>The problem is when a TLD wants to change from 
>one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
>
>Rob
>
>From: Jean Guillon <jean at guillon.com>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM
>To: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>
>Cc: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, 
>"alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca" 
><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 
>"gregshatanipc at gmail.com" 
><gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, 
>"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
>
>I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants 
>can identify where they want to go to.
>In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered 
>as generic TLDs "with options".
>Categories offer precision.
>
>On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, 
><<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
>Good point!
>Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean 
>that we should throw away the baby with the 
>bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
>
>Jorge
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ
>An: Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>, 
>Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Cc: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
>Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: 
>New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
>
>And in fact, categories could give us the 
>ability to address the Brand issue and not 
>constrain them to rounds should we choose, just 
>as we do not constrain them with some of the 
>other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
>
>Alan
>
>At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
>Greg,
>
>Help me understand why you would not want to get 
>to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
>
>I believe this entire artificial “in 
>rounds† that we are dre doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
>
>I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands 
>that missed the last round and want their 
>TLD.   If we had an open TLD registration 
>process, they could have easily applied by 
>now.   I suspect that the entire reason for 
>“Categories† is to try and sad say we 
>should proceed with one ahead of another.
>
>By doing it in rounds, we are creating the 
>scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
>
>As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed 
>why categories are a good idea.  Can someone fill me in ?
>
>Rob.
>
>From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
>To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>
>Cc: Martin Sutton 
><<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>martin at brandregistrygroup.org>, 
>Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><<mailto: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
>
>I don't think that's where we are trying to get 
>to.  Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a 
>TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for 
>this WG.  (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
>
>There are a number of good reasons for 
>categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it 
>out of hand.  Turning the TLD space into a "high 
>rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
>
>There were certainly problems with the community 
>applications (not really a separate "round") but 
>something done poorly may be worth doing 
>better.  I'm sure we have plenty of other horror 
>stories from different parts of the New gTLD 
>Program and from different perspectives.  We 
>should learn from them, rather than use them as 
>an excuse to move away from them.
>
>Greg
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: 917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>
>On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.com>> wrote:
>
>I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
>
>br> If you think of the place we are trying to 
>get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any 
>time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
>
>The arguments for them seem to focus on these 
>artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow 
>giving someone a leg up on someone else.   I can 
>just imagine the loud screaming when someone 
>games the system.   Have we not learned anything 
>from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
>
>Rob.
>
>From: < 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> 
>on behalf of Martin Sutton < 
><mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>
>Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
>To: Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>  
> >
>Cc: " 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto: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
><mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>
>
>On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>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: 
><mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> 
>or 
><mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>T: <tel:%2B1.703.635.7514>+1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514>
>M: <tel:%2B1.202.549.5079>+1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079>
>@Jintlaw
>
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>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 
><<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan 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
>
>Hi Everyone:
>
>In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, 
>I read the spreadsheet describing the diffferent 
>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 imo 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 
>wasn̢۪t just a process failure, the tastask 
>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 othhe other ’no’? This 
>sort of issue is simple compae 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
><mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>kurt at kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt at kjpritz.com>
><tel:%2B1.310.400.4184>+1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184>
>Skype: kjpritz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan 
><<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>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>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 
>)
>5)      Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ 
>Public Commentt 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 
><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
>
>Best,
>Steve
>
>
>Steven Chanâ€Â¨
>Sr. Policy Managerâ€Â¨Ã¢€Â¨â‚¬Â¨
>
>ICANN
>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536â€Â¨
><maillto:steve.chan at icann.org>steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
>mobile: <tel:%2B1.310.339.4410>+1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410>
>office tel: <tel:%2B1.310.301.5800>+1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800>
>office fax: <tel:%2B1.310.823.8649>+1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>
>
>Find out more about the GNSO by taking our 
>interactive courses and visiting the GNSO 
>Newcomer 
>pages<<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>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/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>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
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>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
>
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
> 
>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w==
>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
> 
>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
>
>--
>Jean Guillon
>6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle
>92120 Montrouge
>France
>
>Phone: +33.631109837
>Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon
>Web: <http://www.guillon.com>www.guillon.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170516/ad2da94d/attachment-0001.html>