Dear Justine,
thank you very much for putting together slides with Neustar's
proposals. I must admit that these slides made me feel particularly
uneasy about the whole process of subsequent procedures. Without
prejudice, here we have the Chair of the working group, main driver
of the working group moving forward, ex-Neustar and currently
working for Valideus, a company that stands to capitalise
significantly in the creation of brand TLDs, pushing a calendar that
is suggested by his ex-firm, favouring his current firm. I cannot
stop seeing a flashing sign telling me "conflict of interest" here.
At ICANN Studienkreis and elsewhere, Cherine Chalaby has been asking
the community about the need for a fast next round, and the majority
of people around the table, whether end users, businesses,
registrars and established registries said they were not eager for
an immediate next round. It is only companies that stand to benefit
directly from new gTLDs, such as the service providers that have
flourished to help with TLD applications (and independent
consultants), or register brands, or apply a city TLD business model
that they have already applied elsewhere, who are pushing for a next
round.
I am not against a next round, but when I see an illustration on
page 4 saying "brand TLDs" with an application window 1st Oct 2919
to 12 Jan 2020 (even though there is an asterisk saying proposed
dates are illustrative only), this worries me as a way to circulate
potential dates for next round. That is, again, putting the carriage
before the horses.
That said, on the actual concept of three phase model, and
irrespective of the above, I am not against the concept of phases,
but I do not agree with the proposed phases themselves. Phase 1,
brands, sound okay, except for those brands that are geographic
names. I would argue that Community TLDs should not be batched with
generic TLDs and should be prioritised before GeoTLDs. So Community
TLDs should go to phase 2 and Geo TLDs could go to phase 3. I would
also say that I have seen significant pushback on generic TLDs that
are based on generic words, so I really wonder how that is going to
pan out.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 05/01/2019 09:08, Justine Chew
wrote:
Dear
colleagues,
Greetings for the New Year 2019.
During one of the SubPro PDP Sub-Group's review of community
submissions received for the Public Comment on the Initial
Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (Overarching
Issues & Work Tracks 1-4) (which concluded on 26 Sep
2018), that WG's Co-Chair, Jeff Neuman, requested that SO/AC
liaisons obtain from their stakeholder groups
feedback on
a proposal by Neustar for the (next) New gTLD Program
applications to be conducted in three phases followed by an
open round.
Details of Neustar's proposal are
contained in the attached slide deck.
I invite you to provide feedback on the same by:-
1) Replying to this email (or to me privately, if you prefer);
2) Starting a separate email thread to
cpwg@icann.org
if you wish to discuss a specific aspect of the said proposal;
and/or
3) Joining the next CPWG call (tentatively on 9 Jan 2019,
please look out for a notice from At-Large staff for this
call)
Thank
you.
Justine Chew
-----
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
--
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html