hi all, i’ll speak personally, i haven’t checked with the constituency on this. i would go a notch further than Jonathan — this item seems premature. partly because of external events, partly because the rollout *is* taking longer than the framers of the Applicant Guidebook envisaged. i’m not ruling it out, but my immediate reaction is quite muted. mikey On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info> wrote:

Thanks Bret,

I think this item may have got eclipsed by all of the other activity on Friday and over the weekend.

In any case, the point is noted and currently I think we can aim to fit this into the weekend sessions.

The draft agenda for Wednesday is looking full-ish for a two hour meeting but I am open to persuasion as to whether we discuss this on Wed.

Jonathan

From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@nic.sexy] Sent: 14 March 2014 15:39 To: Council Subject: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application Rounds

Dear Councillors,

I would like to propose that we add some time on our Singapore agenda for discussing next steps in preparation for Round 2 of the new gTLD launch. As you may know, in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN wrote the following about subsequent new gTLD rounds:

1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds

ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will be based on experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed. The goal is for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.

ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone system after the first application round, and will defer the delegations in a second application round until it is determined that the delegations resulting from the first round did not jeopardize root zone system security or stability.

It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent application rounds, and that a systemized manner of applying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.

The "the close of the application submission period for the initial round” was May, 2012, so the goal for the launch of Round 2 has already been missed, by a material amount of time. I think we all would agree that many aspects of the program, from the application process to the review and implementation, should be reviewed and revisited.

Let’s spend some time discussing “subsequent application rounds" and see if we can come to a shared understanding of what the proper next steps would be, including the role of the Council and the GNSO in the review process.

I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in Singapore.

Bret

-- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com — — — — —

-- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@nic.sexy — — — — —

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

I think we can acknowledge that the timeline for Round 2 is off target (by years!), but see no harm I periodically revisiting this commitment, and understanding what obstacles remain in front of it. Otherwise, we run the risk that the next phase of the program is deferred indefinitely, in favor of the hot topic du jour. Thank you-- J. Sent from my iPad

On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:31, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@Antel.com.uy> wrote:

I agree with Mikey. Best regards, Osvaldo

El 18/03/2014, a las 08:28, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> escribió:

hi all,

i’ll speak personally, i haven’t checked with the constituency on this. i would go a notch further than Jonathan — this item seems premature. partly because of external events, partly because the rollout *is* taking longer than the framers of the Applicant Guidebook envisaged. i’m not ruling it out, but my immediate reaction is quite muted.

mikey

On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:

Thanks Bret,

I think this item may have got eclipsed by all of the other activity on Friday and over the weekend.

In any case, the point is noted and currently I think we can aim to fit this into the weekend sessions.

The draft agenda for Wednesday is looking full-ish for a two hour meeting but I am open to persuasion as to whether we discuss this on Wed.

Jonathan

From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@nic.sexy] Sent: 14 March 2014 15:39 To: Council Subject: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application Rounds

Dear Councillors,

I would like to propose that we add some time on our Singapore agenda for discussing next steps in preparation for Round 2 of the new gTLD launch. As you may know, in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN wrote the following about subsequent new gTLD rounds:

1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds

ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will be based on experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed. The goal is for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.

ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone system after the first application round, and will defer the delegations in a second application round until it is determined that the delegations resulting from the first round did not jeopardize root zone system security or stability.

It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent application rounds, and that a systemized manner of applying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.

The "the close of the application submission period for the initial round” was May, 2012, so the goal for the launch of Round 2 has already been missed, by a material amount of time. I think we all would agree that many aspects of the program, from the application process to the review and implementation, should be reviewed and revisited.

Let’s spend some time discussing “subsequent application rounds" and see if we can come to a shared understanding of what the proper next steps would be, including the role of the Council and the GNSO in the review process.

I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in Singapore.

Bret

-- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com<mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> — — — — —

-- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy> — — — — —

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

Hi, One question I have upfront. As the thousands of flowers are blooming, do we need another round or could we recommend that we go into a first come first served methodology. Sure some will rush the starting gun, but it would simplify mechanisms greatly. And various forms of batching could stil occur. I am not even sure I think it will be the right time, but I think it is a question we should consider and not automatically assume the council would recommend another round like the horror we are in. How many of us really want to see the current practice and process repeated? avri On 18-Mar-14 08:54, Mike O'Connor wrote:

hi James,

you bring up a good point. what if a sub group went off and started compiling that list of objectives and obstacles?

mikey

On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:45 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

...

I think we can acknowledge that the timeline for Round 2 is off target (by years!), but see no harm I periodically revisiting this commitment, and understanding what obstacles remain in front of it. Otherwise, we run the risk that the next phase of the program is deferred indefinitely, in favor of the hot topic du jour.

Thank you--

J.

Sent from my iPad

...

On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:31, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@Antel.com.uy> wrote:

I agree with Mikey. Best regards, Osvaldo

El 18/03/2014, a las 08:28, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> escribió:

hi all,

i’ll speak personally, i haven’t checked with the constituency on this. i would go a notch further than Jonathan — this item seems premature. partly because of external events, partly because the rollout *is* taking longer than the framers of the Applicant Guidebook envisaged. i’m not ruling it out, but my immediate reaction is quite muted.

mikey

On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> wrote:

Thanks Bret,

I think this item may have got eclipsed by all of the other activity on Friday and over the weekend.

In any case, the point is noted and currently I think we can aim to fit this into the weekend sessions.

The draft agenda for Wednesday is looking full-ish for a two hour meeting but I am open to persuasion as to whether we discuss this on Wed.

Jonathan

From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@nic.sexy] Sent: 14 March 2014 15:39 To: Council Subject: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application Rounds

Dear Councillors,

I would like to propose that we add some time on our Singapore agenda for discussing next steps in preparation for Round 2 of the new gTLD launch. As you may know, in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN wrote the following about subsequent new gTLD rounds:

1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds

ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will be based on experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed. The goal is for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.

ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone system after the first application round, and will defer the delegations in a second application round until it is determined that the delegations resulting from the first round did not jeopardize root zone system security or stability.

It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent application rounds, and that a systemized manner of applying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.

The "the close of the application submission period for the initial round” was May, 2012, so the goal for the launch of Round 2 has already been missed, by a material amount of time. I think we all would agree that many aspects of the program, from the application process to the review and implementation, should be reviewed and revisited.

Let’s spend some time discussing “subsequent application rounds" and see if we can come to a shared understanding of what the proper next steps would be, including the role of the Council and the GNSO in the review process.

I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in Singapore.

Bret

-- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@uniregistry.com<mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> — — — — —

-- Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@nic.sexy<mailto:bret@nic.sexy> — — — — —

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

this item seems premature.

Mikey, My first inclination was to submit a motion for a PDP, but I thought that might be premature because this issue involves many pieces and no one has thought much about it to date. So anticipating this concern, I thought it best to simply open the issue for discussion so we can collectively think about what aspects of the program we need to address, whether this requires one or multiple issue reports from ICANN, and one or multiple PDPs. This is really just a discussion item for the Council to frame the next steps, and I don’t think anyone needs to have a constituency position on the substance yet. Bret