[Gnso-newgtld-wg] On copy-pasting applications

Mike Rodenbaugh mike at rodenbaugh.com
Mon Mar 25 21:31:48 UTC 2019

I would consider such a discussion to be a large waste of time.  Not least
because such a discussion was had ad nauseum in the run-up to 2012, and it
was realized then as it inevitably will be realized again now that there is
no way to stop multiple applications -- however you define that.  Also, I
would strongly argue against your premise that they are a bad thing, a
premise for which you offer no factual support whatsoever.  As it has
turned out, portfolio applicants have been some of the most innovative and
commercially successful operators, and have contributed to geographic
diversity rather than denigrated from it.

What is the problem you are trying to solve, and what proof do you have
that it is a problem for anyone else?  Without that explanation and
evidence, we should not take up this point for discussion.  We have plenty
more left to talk about, already on the agenda.

Mike Rodenbaugh
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:19 PM lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Dear Rubens, Dear All:
> The whole discussion about copy-pasting into applications seems to
> presuppose that there will be applicants who intend to apply for multiple
> TLDs, not excluding very large numbers of applications.
> If that happens again, it would defeat the objectives of consumer choice,
> competitive DNS offerings and linguistic and geographical diversity.
> Furthermore, - in the present DNS market conditions - those TLD delegations
> would be primarily directed towards warehousing and speculation with a view
> to future profitable sales. Such an outcome would discredit ICANN in ways
> that I would prefer not to.
> May I suggest that Subsequent Procedures starts to discuss ways of
> preventing or radically discouraging multiple applications. Obviously a
> minimalist starting point would be to prevent ‘copy-pasting’.
> Regards
> CW
> > On 25 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi folks.
> >
> > On the theme whether there should be an ability for applicants to
> replicate responses among application, I believe we are mixing two
> different things:
> > 1) If the application should or must have this feature
> > 2) If applications should have dissimilarities among them from a policy
> perspective
> >
> > On (1), I believe the relevant WT, comments and SG analysis should base
> the WG discussion, notably the alert by ICANN Org that more features equal
> more time and cost. But we shouldn't conflate that discussion with whether
> copy-pasting, even if done by the applicant on its own, should be
> discouraged or disallowed.
> >
> > On (2), I believe the relevant WG, comments and SGs already established
> that when the point of non-scored questions was analysed, and the full WG
> should consider that. But one thing that could help those reviewing the
> applications would be a comparative analysis. And regardless whether policy
> forbids such or not, that would be a useful aid for groups reviewing large
> number of applications. I only discourage making that a requirement, but
> expressing the usefulness of such a tool in the final report would at least
> allow someone at Org to argue for it to be contracted/created.
> >
> >
> > Rubens
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190325/3c12f5fe/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list