It's seeming highly likely that numerous issues -- notably the issue of applicant support in developing countries -- may demand a committment to multiple rounds. The ICANN Board committed at the last meeting to establishing a fund -- and seeding that fund with $2M -- for this purpose. Notwithstanding community (ie, GNSO, GAC and ALAC, expressed through the JAS WG report) concerns about the validity of this as an effective tactic, it exists as a commitment. And there is no way on earth that an independent foundation to administer such a fund could be enabled in time to form and have its personnel, structure and funding ready for this winter's round. So one may discern that event back in Singapore, the Board envisioned a subsequent round while it enabled this one. Plenty of details and community fedeback is left TBD, but the collective mindset of the Board seemed clear. Timing? No clue. I'm quite happy with "it's ready when it's ready", a theme that has driven most Internet innovation these days. - Evan PS: Having worked deeply in the Linux community during the height of Microsoft's intense opposition to anything open source, I think I have a well developed sense of the difference between FUD, legitimate concern and petty rumor-mongering. Little of what we've seen here is FUD, and it's no surprise that different advisors offer different advice. Indeed, these days I'm far more concerned with reverse-FUD (ratings agencies saying everything is fine when indeed there SHOULD be fear) than the original. On 20 October 2011 17:10, Antony Van Couvering <avc@avc.vc> wrote:

FUD sucks and hurts everyone and there's far too much of it in this industry. On the other hand, ignoring reality isn't very helpful either.

Looking at the realities of ICANN's processes, the studies that the GAC wants done *after* all new TLDs have been in operation for a while, etc. -- what do people here think is a reasonable estimate for when Round 2 happens?

I'm asked by potential clients, "When will we see Round 2"? What should I answer?

I don't say "now or never," but I do tell them I don't think we'll see a new round for at least a few years -- which is my honest best guess. Furthermore, if they have a common trademark like "United," a competing application from another "united" trademark holder is perfectly possible in this round. If they have a coined, unique name like "Xerox" then they can easily wait for Round 2 or 3 or whenever. So the impetus to apply in this round is different for different brand holders.

Antony

On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:

...

Bret

I've been hearing the same thing from quite a few people - including potential applicants for this round.

Personally I'd hate to see the good and positive aspects of new Tlds being overshadowed by FUD being touted as "advice" by some of the new tld crowd

Regards

Michele

Mr. Michele Neylon Blacknight http://Blacknight.tel <http://blacknight.tel/>

Via iPhone so excuse typos and brevity

On 20 Oct 2011, at 21:35, "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:

...

I really liked the idea that ICANN announce now when it will have the next open application window as a way to take pressure off this round. The "now or never" idea that a lot of consultants and back-end registries are pitching is both factually wrong and, I think, detrimental to the process. Scaring people into operating Internet infrastructure won't be good for anyone, including the company that receives the delegation of something it wasn't really sure it wanted anyway. "Now or never" also will substantially increase the number of applications, which will complicate the evaluation and launch process.

I'd like to see ICANN announce now that it will open another application window in January, 2013. That would give the companies sitting on the fence comfort that they won't be left out, and we all will be able to see whether what comes out of this first round is worth emulating. My expectation is that after seeing what new TLDs really look like, with all of their complexities and expenses, some of the companies now thinking of how to do this will decide not to pursue it at all. For the undecided, I think it's better to watch and learn than to learn while operating a registry.

Bret

On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Is anyone from NARALO going to this conference?

http://www.cadna.org/Whats-At-Stake/

It seems like a very useful approach with which we might want to associate ourselves. Yes, much of it involves major brandholders scared by the influx of gTLDs, but it seems that there is much common ground between that group's skepticism about the program and that of ICANN At-Large.

As one example of how this may be interesting, apparently gTLD consultants are unwelcome at the event:

http://domainincite.com/whats-at-stake-conference-bans-new-gtld-consultants/

...

... boo hoo.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------