[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
crg at isoc-cr.org
Thu May 18 00:59:23 UTC 2017
+1 Michele
Carlos Raúl GUTIERREZ
Apartado 1571-1000
San José COSTA RICA
On May 15, 2017 08:40, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
wrote:
Volker
All valid points, but for every point there is an equally strong
counterpoint.
I’m not suggesting that the arguments for or against categories are right
or wrong, but I think that completely discounting them causes as many
problems as it solves.
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 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
-------------------------------
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 Volker Greimann <
vgreimann at key-systems.net>
*Date: *Monday 15 May 2017 at 16:16
*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
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 <+353%2059%20918%203072>
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 <+353%2059%20918%203090>
-------------------------------
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>
<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton
<martin at brandregistrygroup.org> <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
*Date: *Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25
*To: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
*Cc: *"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
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 <(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 <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 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
+1.310.400.4184 <(310)%20400-4184>
Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <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_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff
zJAAhEvNlA/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.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan at icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <(310)%20339-4410>
office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <(310)%20301-5800>
office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <(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>
.
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
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
_______________________________________________
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
www.domaindiscount24.com / 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
www.domaindiscount24.com / 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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
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/20170517/56bdb3e8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list