Question relating to overall implications to program of considerable changes
Hi All I had intended to ask this question on today's call, but as that didn't happen I'll ask on the list. It is possible that my question is out of scope of the DG, but I'd be interested in the thoughts of others. Given the potential for substantive changes to be made to the New gTLD Program as a result of the work of the DG and other reviews that are being undertaken, will any consideration be given to the disparity that may result between registry operators from this round and future rounds? I raise this question mostly in the context of the Registry Agreement. I would envisage a number of challenges in terms of compliance and for ICANN more generally in managing clients on different platforms in the event of a significantly revised Registry Agreement. This issue may have already been discussed by this group and I apologise if I missed it, but I would welcome thoughts of others about whether they foresee any problems or how this meta issue will be addressed in the reviews and other work moving forward. Thanks, Donna [Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com<mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com<http://www.ariservices.com/> Follow us on Twitter<https://twitter.com/ARIservices> The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
Agree that meta issues impact this group's work. While we're at it, the accountability review proposes pretty fundamental changes to ICANN that could impact how a round is negotiated and the extent to which any contention set can be resolved other than by auction. Anyone monitoring that? Best regards, Jacob. Jacob Malthouse Co-founder & Director, Big Room Inc. 778-960-6527 www.bigroom.ca On 11 May 2015 at 12:08, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> wrote:
Hi All
I had intended to ask this question on today’s call, but as that didn’t happen I’ll ask on the list.
It is possible that my question is out of scope of the DG, but I’d be interested in the thoughts of others.
Given the potential for substantive changes to be made to the New gTLD Program as a result of the work of the DG and other reviews that are being undertaken, will any consideration be given to the disparity that may result between registry operators from this round and future rounds?
I raise this question mostly in the context of the Registry Agreement. I would envisage a number of challenges in terms of compliance and for ICANN more generally in managing clients on different platforms in the event of a significantly revised Registry Agreement.
This issue may have already been discussed by this group and I apologise if I missed it, but I would welcome thoughts of others about whether they foresee any problems or how this meta issue will be addressed in the reviews and other work moving forward.
Thanks,
Donna
[image: Description: Description: Description: ARI Logo]*D**ONNA AUSTIN* Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
*ARI REGISTRY SERVICES* Melbourne *|* Los Angeles *P* +1 310 890 9655 *P* +61 3 9866 3710 *E* donna.austin@ariservices.com *W* www.ariservices.com
*Follow us on **Twitter* <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
*The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Donna, Actually, I see what has been asked from some registries in this round as blatantly excessive, like EPP and data escrow for exclusive-use registries. But I don't see that as more of a compliance challenge for ICANN than it's already... not counting legacy gTLDs, sponsored TLDs and 2001-round gTLDs, restricting to only what was used in the 2012 round there are a good number of variations: - Some registries use host-objects and other use host-attributes - Some registries are exclusive-use, others are brands, others are community, others are generic; (Geos are either community or generic in this context) - Some registries are based out of dedicated or virtualized registry systems, some are shared registry systems serving a number of TLDs - Some registries are allowed to use 2-char domains and/or country names, with a list varying by TLD - WHOIS output was not defined and have a multitude of formats - Some registries allowed out-of-band communication of Sunrise SMDs, some didn't - Some registries are 2nd-level, some are 3rd level - Some don't support IDN, some support IDN but have no variants, some support IDN and have variants Even if some changes are made to registry agreement, I don't see them adding a new order of magnitude to this complexity. It might grow up, but it will grow up anyways as differences from the 2012 bunch are realized and some new services are introduced thru RSEP into them. And if one of the goals is to add diversity, not forcing some specific "vanilla" models is essential. Rubens
Em 11/05/2015, à(s) 16:08:000, Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@ariservices.com> escreveu:
Hi All
I had intended to ask this question on today’s call, but as that didn’t happen I’ll ask on the list.
It is possible that my question is out of scope of the DG, but I’d be interested in the thoughts of others.
Given the potential for substantive changes to be made to the New gTLD Program as a result of the work of the DG and other reviews that are being undertaken, will any consideration be given to the disparity that may result between registry operators from this round and future rounds?
I raise this question mostly in the context of the Registry Agreement. I would envisage a number of challenges in terms of compliance and for ICANN more generally in managing clients on different platforms in the event of a significantly revised Registry Agreement.
This issue may have already been discussed by this group and I apologise if I missed it, but I would welcome thoughts of others about whether they foresee any problems or how this meta issue will be addressed in the reviews and other work moving forward.
Thanks,
Donna
<image001.png>DONNA AUSTIN Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
ARI REGISTRY SERVICES Melbourne | Los Angeles P +1 310 890 9655 P +61 3 9866 3710 E donna.austin@ariservices.com <mailto:donna.austin@ariservices.com> W www.ariservices.com <http://www.ariservices.com/>
Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/ARIservices>
The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
participants (3)
-
Donna Austin -
Jacob Malthouse -
Rubens Kuhl