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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed May 17 15:55:52 UTC 2017


Rob,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible
idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.

Greg


*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com


On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
wrote:

> Greg,
>
> I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply.  So a
> registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application.  Competitors
> then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.”  Whether they
> win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a
> unique idea more expensive.  I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman
> *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor;
> Volker Greimann; 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 would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs
> are simply too valuable and unique.  We don't need to have "rounds" in
> order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice,
> etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and
> for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for
> the string.  In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated
> from every other application but going through the same process as
> applications currently do.  This eliminates the pent up demand problem,
> without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
> wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
>
>
> To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as
> well:
>
>
>
> 1.  ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand.  We
> would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is
> offered to any category, etc.
>
> 2.  After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide
> advice on).  ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and
> processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis.
> However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were
> posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals
> Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections,
> public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an
> example).  This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course
> the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait
> list service for TLDs ;)).
>
>
>
> Other than that last part, do I have that right?  If so, it presents an
> interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new
> option for the group to consider.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> *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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM
> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
> AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>; 'Volker
> Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>; 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
>
>
>
> OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this
> current string.
>
>
>
> I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial
> solution.  I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was
> suggesting or advocating for.
>
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to
> concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round)
> that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
>
>
>
> As an example, would we need categories ?
>
>
>
> Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract.  Ie: It becomes just a
> means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms
> apply.
>
>
>
> But for priority ?   Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a
> FCFS world.
>
>
>
> So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will
> call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”.
> Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM
> *To: *Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <
> AAikman at lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>, 'Volker
> Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "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
>
>
>
> Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been
> going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are
> not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of
> GTLDs as a "round".
>
> Alan
>
> At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>
> Anne,
>
> To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off.   It is only being
> suggested AFTER the next round ends.  So that after we have dealt any pent
> up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
>
> I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored.   The
> reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the
> process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
>
> However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a
> month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
>
> When they announce is not related to when the application is received and
> the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
>
> Rob
>
> *From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM
> *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <
> vgreimann at key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.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
>
> What about a hybrid approach?  FCFS is a terrible idea when no application
> has been permitted for over 5 years.  There is “pent-up†demand.   It is
> also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources.   Personally (and
> obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
>
> 1.       We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC
> Report and Copenhagen Communique.  It would take 60% of the Board to reject
> that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council
> Advice to the contrary.  Will the Board act in this situation or just tell
> GAC and GNSO to “work it out†?  Why not “cut to the chase†and work
> it out with the GAC now ?   All Objection processes should apply.  PICs
> have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t
> be revoked or it voids the registry agreement.    It’s up to Track 3 to
> develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t
> trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to
> meet a “social good†requirement.  “Community†is also about freedom
> of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
>
> (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization
> applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds.   No idea
> what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs.   Could an
> LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for  a
> geo name?  Is there any way to work this out now?  ICANN has got to get way
> more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the
> Board.   And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no
> application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window?
> Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old
> version of AGB?)
>
> 2.      Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands.
> Why?  Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment
> that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with
> potential TLD strings to pay off.  (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.)
> Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community
> objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc.    Applications for
> same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string
> contention.  After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third
> party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the
> trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all
> obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
>
> 3.      Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and
> applications compete.  String contention and all objection procedures apply.
>
> 4.      Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of
> applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a
> public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for
> objections).
>
> Anne
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel
> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
> AAikman at lrrc.com
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
> lrrc.com
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa
> Taylor
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM
> *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; 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
>
> Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
>
> Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around
> gaming the system.   Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room
> would be the more direct approach.  How do we prevent gaming?  For
> instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry
> could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to
> a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short
> period of time afterwards?   I’m not saying that these are solutions but
> just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christa
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker
> Greimann
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM
> *To:* Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; 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
>
>
> If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the
> rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does
> not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over
> the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd
> have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from
> applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And
> even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a
> legitimate objection too is very high.
>
> It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants
> have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick
> application and fires it off while the other takes care that the
> application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that
> takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
>
> OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its
> benefits.
>
> Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should
> consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with
> cannot be gamed for public harm.
>
> Best,
>
> Volker
>
>
> Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
>
> Sigh.
>
>
>
> My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled
> pent up demand.  This is clearly not just about one TLD.
>
>
>
> Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open
> applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round,
> that you think there would be a rush in the first day ?  I fail to
> comprehend how that is possible.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
>
> To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> <rob at momentous.com>,
> "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg 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
>
>
>
> Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically
> be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
>
>
>
> Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
>
> Volker,
>
>
>
> Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
>
>
>
> Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of
> the rush.
>
>
>
> We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS.
> Not any.  There was no point.  You could have applied yesterday just as
> today.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann
> <vgreimann at key-systems.net> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
>
> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg 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
>
>
>
>  I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion
> about the best technology.   That only occurs when you artificially create
> demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the
> deleting domain space.
>
>  Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in
> all the new gTLD’s.
>
> Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs,
> excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the
> majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen
> in the first few hours or days.
>
> Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will
> benefit from most.
>
> Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With
> rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to
> look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or
> needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to
> perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources
> to make that decision.
>
> That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective
> for those affected.
>
>
>
> From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>
> Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin" <alexander at schubert.berlin>
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> <alexander at schubert.berlin>
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
>
> To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg 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
>
>
>
> Rob,
>
> I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and
> “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3
> month after we open the floodgates.  Doesn’t matter whether it is a
> “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t
> change.
>
> If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a
> “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition
> KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†.
> Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
>
> There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept
> applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after
> the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make
> themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it
> won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The
> application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be
> enough).
>
> But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in
> “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext
> application window  6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make
> much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s
> capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be
> FIXED.
>
> So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one
> “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To
> allow for competition to happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob at momentous.com <rob at momentous.com>]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
>
> To: alexander at schubert.berlin; 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†) – obtainn 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 arre 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 theere 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 DNNS 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†froom being used – just for
> computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: 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 woould 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
> thee 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 <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 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 >
>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
>
> To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>
>
> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin at brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.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 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 <(917)%20816-6428>
>
> S: gsshatan
>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> wrote:
>
> I honestly can̢۪t 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> on behalf of Martin Sutton <
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
>
> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
>
> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >
>
> Cc: " 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <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 or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org <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>; 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_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff
> zJAAhEvNlA/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 ¢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’? T¢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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web:
>
> www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <+49%206894%209396901>
>
>
>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
>
>
>
> Email:
>
> vgreimann at key-systems.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Web: www.key-systems.net /
>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
> Content-Description: image001.png
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497;
>          creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT";
>          modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"
> Content-ID: <image001.png at 01D2CE90.2CAEC770>
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf
> ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi
> sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>          ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(
> 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(
> 400001002070)(400125200095);
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>          1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf
> ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi
> sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
> 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
> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/7d80ef5e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/7d80ef5e/image003-0001.png>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list