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

Fri May 19 21:14:36 UTC 2017

Dear All

*I have received the above surprising message which seems GNSO and ICANN
advokating contention*

*" message **There will be LOT’s of contention**: **And that is good –**
it’s competition; and competition drives innovation **and is healthy**.*

*Comments**¨*

*Not  every body expect to live with contention???*

*“ That is good “ **It may be good for SOME PEOPLE  and not for every
body??*

*Contention is not a driving for innovation and it is not good nor healthy
at all*

*.**·*         *ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all
these 10,000 applications*

*What is the basis for that processing period? where  people have got that
information?*

*At least I can not  envisage  the conmplexity or otherwise of any of those
10000 strings*

*·*         *I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in
stops between “rounds” (like this time).*

*Whom  referred as **"WE"*

*People may speak for themselves only or for any one supporting them and
NOT for others *

* So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to
receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any
new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date.*

*it seems  an individual now decides  for icann**????*

*·*         *However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for
at LEAST  one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS”
at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else.*

*Where this guestimate enmanated from **·*

*So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two *

*Who has decided so ?*

*and allow contention to happen.*

*Why ICANN should look for contention *

* It’s fruitful.*

*What is fruitful? The contention? Or the anarchy? *

* Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS
that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an
incentive to apply early)*

*Why people persuade others to apply early’to warehouse the srtings?*

*To prevent others to have access to DNS? *

*To create contention ?.*

 *But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation
and competition through FCFS*

* Funny???**. *

*FCFS is not innovation. It is warehousing. *

*·*         *This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of
the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously
depending on the workload of ICANN).*

*It is good to dream ??? and talk about 3RD round, 4th round and???’…. *

*·*         *This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon
which we phase* *into an ongoing process.*

*It seems that people establishes long term strategies for the entire
community.It is interesting ???*

*Regards*

*Kavouss *

2017-05-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>:

> Thought:
>
> ·         There won’t be ANY application accepted before 2018 or 2019:
> Rounds or FCFS. The PDP (even if we adopted FCFS) will take that long.
>
> ·         Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of
> probably around 10,000 applications.
>
> ·         There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s
> competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy.
>
> ·         ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these
> 10,000 applications
>
> ·         I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in
> stops between “rounds” (like this time). So AFTER the “reveal” of the
> applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the
> next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed
> date.
>
> ·         However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for
> at LEAST  one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS”
> at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else.
>
> ·         So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or
> two – and allow contention to happen. It’s fruitful. Once the round closes
> the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early
> in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early).
> But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation
> and competition through FCFS.
>
> ·         This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of
> the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously
> depending on the workload of ICANN).
>
> ·         This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon
> which we phase into an ongoing process.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
> Please: Delete before you post ALL INDIVIDUALS and send the email ONLY to “
> gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org” Otherwise the individuals in CC  get all
> emails TWICE! Also please shorten the threat every now and then. The emails
> get too bulky over time.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:03 PM
> *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
> AAikman at lrrc.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
>
>
>
> Greg,
>
>
>
> We have a land rush for TLD’s.  That’s a fact of life.  There is demand.
>
>
>
> We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds.   We let
> demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
>
>
>
> Rob.
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM
> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>,
> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 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,
>
>
>
> 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 <(917)%20816-6428>
> 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 donâ€™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 â€œpent-upâ€ 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 â€œwork it outâ€ ?  Why not â€œcut to the chaseâ€ 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 canâ€™t
> be revoked or it voids the registry agreement.    Itâ€™s up to Track 3 to
> develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we donâ€™t
> trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to
> meet a â€œsocial goodâ€ requirement.  â€œCommunityâ€ is also about freedom
> of association, or in this case, freedom of â€œvirtual associationâ€ .
>
> (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 â€œestoppelâ€ factor if geo name not covered by old
> version of AGB?)
>
> 2.      Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands.
> Why?  Because itâ€™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 Iâ€™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?   Iâ€™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 TLDâ€™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 gTLDâ€™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 â€œfree market accessâ€ and
> â€œcompetitionâ€ ? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3
> month after we open the floodgates.  Doesnâ€™t matter whether it is a
> â€œroundâ€ or an â€œongoing processâ€ – thhe number of applications wonâ€™t
> change.
>
> If you have no â€œroundâ€ – what is it then? The only othher thing than a
> â€œroundâ€ is â€œFirst Comes First Servedâ€ . Thatâ€™s a competition
> KILLER. The ones will win who have the best â€œgTLD snapping technologyâ€ .
> Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
>
> There is no way around having a â€œroundâ€ 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
> wonâ€™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 â€œpromiseâ€ of a next round in
> â€œabout a yearâ€ – we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext
> application window  6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldnâ€™t make
> much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANNâ€™s
> capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be
> FIXED.
>
> So itâ€™s almost like your â€œcontinuous application mechanismâ€ with one
> â€œlaunch dateâ€ – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To
> allow for competition to happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170519/1b022b8b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6489 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170519/1b022b8b/image001-0001.png>