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

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Tue May 16 13:47:33 UTC 2017


Categories don’t go away.

A .brand TLD shouldn’t be forced to follow the same criteria as an open TLD.
Someone suggested that this difference could be handled via contracts, but either way if there’s more than one type of contract that creates de facto categories. And they’re definitely needed.



--
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> on behalf of Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>
Date: Tuesday 16 May 2017 at 15:37
To: "alexander at schubert.berlin" <alexander at schubert.berlin>, "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

Alexander,

There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring.  There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.

The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later.   And now it looks like it will be 8.  The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.

If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.

The need for rounds is artificial.  We create this by not allowing open applications.

We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches.  A round is exactly the same idea.  It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.

Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.

Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.

I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.

Rob

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin" <alexander at schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: "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,

I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4  or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.

Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string  (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.

Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50  (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.

And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.

So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?

As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule!

Thanks,

Alexander







From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Cc: 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

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 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 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 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.com>>
Cc: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>, "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

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
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.

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: < 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, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
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<tel:(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079>
@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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170516/01f149a5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list