Microsoft Word - 2016-08-05-Steve-Crocker-to-James-Bladel.docxHi James: We’ve shared Steve Crocker’s related letter within our constituency. Following a discussion I’d like to communicate our preliminary thoughts: General observation The recent round of gTLDs resulted in a new "gaming" move for domainers. They discontinued the practice of avidly buying all attractive names that became available for resale purposes, and invested instead in registry concessions, now a new secondary market is developing with gTLDs themselves (not the names). The dominant registrars have cherry picked which new gTLDs to include in their storefronts, thus becoming arbiters of the fate of newly launched gTLDs, since exclusion from their registration sites is a tough disadvantage to overcome. IOW registrars are designated the EXCLUSIVE sales channels for all new gTLDs, but they are under no obligation to carry any of them in their domain name portfolios. A subsequent round might, given these developments, simply augment these distortions, so "proceed with caution" would appear advisable. Further comments 1. Both the letter from the Board and the letter from the GNSO Council seem to start with the assumption that there will necessarily be a subsequent round of the new gTLD program. The ISPCP constituency hopes that a full discussion about whether or not to have a further round is had by the community long before work is done on building a new application process. It seems essential that the marketplace and technical reviews are complete and considered by the community. These need to be part of the foundation of any discussion of whether or not to proceed with subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. 2. In the event that a new gTLD application window is opened, no particular type of gTLD should be allowed to determine the timing of the window. In particular, all strings should have equal status as far as the timing of a subsequent window. For example, a set of strings for a particular use or function, should not be allowed to proceed early. 3. In the event that a new gTLD application window is opened, the policy work in support of the new round should be complete prior to the application process being developed. The ISPCP constituency finds the idea of iterative development of application process to be impossible in the context of such a complex procedure. An iterative approach fails to take into account the interconnectedness of the application process – the development of a policy on geographic names, for example, might have implications on what strings are available and even the prohibition of certain names. The possibility of policy development in one area having a knock-on effect in another area is something we witnessed in the 2012 round. It would likely be a feature of subsequent rounds and makes the iterative development of an application process unlikely to succeed. 4. The Board question about timing raises questions beyond policy and the development of an application process. The ISPCP constituency is extremely concerned that not enough attention has been paid to technical aspects of the deployment of new strings in the root zone. In particular, universal acceptance and technical outreach are areas where the ICANN community needs a new, comprehensive plan. That effort, to ensure that the technical aspects of new gTLDs is addressed, will need to be done before a new application process can commence – thus affecting the schedule of that process. 5. Another technical aspect that must be addressed prior to a new round beginning is the relationship between the Internet’s underlying architecture and the new gTLD program. Specifically, ICANN must improve its relationship with the IETF to identify meaningful ways to cooperate in the reservation of certain strings in the root. This relationship must also provide some reliable, predictable, scalable and usable mechanism for reserving strings for special use or because those strings, if allowed in the root, would affect the security and stability of the DNS and tools built upon the DNS. Procedurally, the ISPCP reserves the right to send our comment directly to the board. We’re looking forward to further discussion within the community. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 7:13 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] FW: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council Councilors - Attached, please find a letter form Steve Crocker/ICANN Board to the Council, regarding the work on subsequent rounds of New gTLDs. (Per Wendy’s note, the letter has not yet been posted on the ICANN Correspondence page, but expected soon). Note that the letter contains a specific request to the GNSO: ‘For example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it would be helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the entirety of the current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new application process under the current policy recommendations. The Board is cognizant that it may be difficult to provide a firm answer at this stage of the process as the reviews are still underway and the PDP is in its initial stages of work, but if any consideration has been given in relation to whether a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of critical issues could be identified to be addressed prior to a new application process, the Board would welcome that input. The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO might wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the various areas of work underway in the multistakeholder community’. I propose that we add this question/topic, and the letter itself, to our 1 SEP meeting agenda as a discussion item, and that we examine ideas on how to proceed on responding to this question. If this is amenable, I would also ask Staff to draft a brief note to Steve, acknowledging the receipt of this letter and noting that it would be discussed during our next meeting. Thoughts on this approach? Thank you, J. From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@icann.org> Date: Friday, August 5, 2016 at 14:19 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Glen de Saint Géry <gnso-secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@board.icann.org>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>, board-support <board-support@icann.org>, Akram Atallah <akram.atallah@icann.org>, Erika Randall <erika.randall@icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@icann.org>, Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian@icann.org>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@icann.org>, Karen Lentz <karen.lentz@icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@icann.org>, Cristina Flores <cristina.flores@icann.org> Subject: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council Dear James Bladel, Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors regarding subsequent New gTLD rounds. The letter will be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence and New gTLD Correspondence pages: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence With warm regards, Wendy Profit ICANN Board Operations Specialist -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16

Em 21 de set de 2016, à(s) 14:48:000, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> escreveu:

Wolf-Ulrich,

...

1. Both the letter from the Board and the letter from the GNSO Council seem to start with the assumption that there will necessarily be a subsequent round of the new gTLD program. The ISPCP constituency hopes that a full discussion about whether or not to have a further round is had by the community long before work is done on building a new application process. It seems essential that the marketplace and technical reviews are complete and considered by the community. These need to be part of the foundation of any discussion of whether or not to proceed with subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications.

Indeed. I am concerned about the way a lot of people seem to assume a subsequent round will happen. I feel we have to wait for the results of the reviews before making up our minds.

The original policy actually defined that it wouldn't be a one-time event or an experimental process... it was defined as recurring and in rounds. The implementation foresaw a new round happening one year after the 2012-round, and it's possible that some parties factored that into their decision to apply or not... ... whether this was wise or not is up for discussion in two workgroups and two review efforts (besides ones already completed. In the particular question "should new subsequent procedures happen", consensus has already been achieved on them to happen, so in this case both existing policy and prospective policy are on the same page. Rubens

All, Here is the long awaited IPC response (sorry it took so long to herd the cats): ________________________________________ “The IPC believes that all of the following reviews should be completed prior to the opening of the next new gTLD application window: Rights Protection Mechanism Phase 1 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures SSR Review CCT Review Several in our number also believe that Rights Protection Mechanism Phase 2 should be completed prior to the next round. Some IPC members also believe there are elements of WS2 which should be completed first." _____________________________________________ I'm looking forward to further discussion on the list and in our next call. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 3:12 AM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> Cc: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council I am with Rubens on this. The question is not if but how and when there will be a next round. Policy decisions regarding the last round all have the assumption that there shall be a next round baked into them. If we want to change that or have a discussion whether or not there should be a next round, we first need to change all those prior policy decisions. Even the subsequent rounds WG currently ongoing is not focussed on considering the IF but rather on the question of HOW. There are studies that have to happen before there can be a next round, and there will likely be changes from how the last round was handled based on the learnings of that round, but the community has committed to this process. Volker Am 21.09.2016 um 20:38 schrieb Rubens Kuhl:

...

Em 21 de set de 2016, à(s) 14:48:000, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> escreveu:

Wolf-Ulrich,

...

1. Both the letter from the Board and the letter from the GNSO Council seem to start with the assumption that there will necessarily be a subsequent round of the new gTLD program. The ISPCP constituency hopes that a full discussion about whether or not to have a further round is had by the community long before work is done on building a new application process. It seems essential that the marketplace and technical reviews are complete and considered by the community. These need to be part of the foundation of any discussion of whether or not to proceed with subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications. Indeed. I am concerned about the way a lot of people seem to assume a subsequent round will happen. I feel we have to wait for the results of the reviews before making up our minds.

The original policy actually defined that it wouldn't be a one-time event or an experimental process... it was defined as recurring and in rounds. The implementation foresaw a new round happening one year after the 2012-round, and it's possible that some parties factored that into their decision to apply or not...

... whether this was wise or not is up for discussion in two workgroups and two review efforts (besides ones already completed. In the particular question "should new subsequent procedures happen", consensus has already been achieved on them to happen, so in this case both existing policy and prospective policy are on the same page.

Rubens

-- 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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@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 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@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.