- Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s)
Dear DG Members, This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC. Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list.
From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649
Steve, I have the following issues to raise: - The question of new gTLD strings that are unacceptable, e.g. for geographic TLDs, would not appear to be adequately defined in the current AGB. With regards to geographic regions and territories, the applicant is directed to UN listings for determining whether or not the application is aceptable, yet in the cases of Amazon and Patagonia, neither were on these listings, and this has caused conflictive situations which are unfortunate. Other considerations involving religion and generic terms are not clearly defined, and there is a clause in the AGB that effectively gives the GAC right of veto over anything one of their members might object to (this was added on the eve of the Singapore announcement of opening of applications). Some work needs to be done to improve this, providing clarity to applicants in a future round. - Concerns expressed by the IP community should be carefully considered. The strong opposition to the new gTLD programme from that sector, resulted in several years of delays and postponements to the opening of the applicant window. Any outstanding issues that remain unsolved in this respect, should be reviewed. - The instrument known as the COI (a letter of credit in favor of ICANN for the sum of U$S 140.000 which, prior to signing the Registry Agreement with ICANN, must be deployed, thus inmobilizing this sum for several years), should be revised as it constitutes an additional entry barrier to communities and non-profit organizations who wish to apply for a new gTLD. - The mechanisms developed by the JAS working group, to support applicants with financial constraints, need to be reviewed and improved. The very limited takeup of this option during the application phase, would appear to signal the need for change. Regards Tony Harris On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace ( https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Hi, this is Alexander Schubert – just joined this group. Regarding the GEO-identifiers: As most of you know I am a fan of them since 2004 (dotBerlin) and I continue to be a fan in the next round – actively preparing an application. What I never understood is why there are ANY restrictions on strings which the respective country anyways needs to approve. Let’s say the Government of the Russian Federation wanted to apply for “.russia” in order to represent themselves at this TLD: Why should they be deprived of it? The U.S. has been granted with .gov – why not allow other countries to present their Government under a vanity TLD? It’s one of the superfluous rules being forced upon the world by GAC to “gain control” – not understanding that actually they take control away. If France wants to present its Government and tourism under .france domains: What is it the business of ANYONE to prevent them from doing it? And if they do not want it: They simply refuse to issue the necessary “non-objection letter”. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-dg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Harris Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:21 PM To: Steve Chan Cc: gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-dg] - Reminder: Submit Issues & Nominations for Group Chair(s) Steve, I have the following issues to raise: - The question of new gTLD strings that are unacceptable, e.g. for geographic TLDs, would not appear to be adequately defined in the current AGB. With regards to geographic regions and territories, the applicant is directed to UN listings for determining whether or not the application is aceptable, yet in the cases of Amazon and Patagonia, neither were on these listings, and this has caused conflictive situations which are unfortunate. Other considerations involving religion and generic terms are not clearly defined, and there is a clause in the AGB that effectively gives the GAC right of veto over anything one of their members might object to (this was added on the eve of the Singapore announcement of opening of applications). Some work needs to be done to improve this, providing clarity to applicants in a future round. - Concerns expressed by the IP community should be carefully considered. The strong opposition to the new gTLD programme from that sector, resulted in several years of delays and postponements to the opening of the applicant window. Any outstanding issues that remain unsolved in this respect, should be reviewed. - The instrument known as the COI (a letter of credit in favor of ICANN for the sum of U$S 140.000 which, prior to signing the Registry Agreement with ICANN, must be deployed, thus inmobilizing this sum for several years), should be revised as it constitutes an additional entry barrier to communities and non-profit organizations who wish to apply for a new gTLD. - The mechanisms developed by the JAS working group, to support applicants with financial constraints, need to be reviewed and improved. The very limited takeup of this option during the application phase, would appear to signal the need for change. Regards Tony Harris On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> > wrote: Dear DG Members, This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC. Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs. Best, Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Hi Steve, I'd like to add my voice to the last point made by Tony, i.e. the matter of support for needy applicants. In particular, I'd like the issue of the participation of developing countries (including outreach to them) addressed as a separate topic. And the dismal failure of the JAS program is an embarassment that deserves a full-blown inquiry of its own, in my opinion. Katim Katim On Sep 5, 2014 7:22 PM, "Anthony Harris" <anthonyrharris@gmail.com> wrote:
Steve,
I have the following issues to raise:
- The question of new gTLD strings that are unacceptable, e.g. for geographic TLDs, would not appear to be adequately defined in the current AGB. With regards to geographic regions and territories, the applicant is directed to UN listings for determining whether or not the application is aceptable, yet in the cases of Amazon and Patagonia, neither were on these listings, and this has caused conflictive situations which are unfortunate. Other considerations involving religion and generic terms are not clearly defined, and there is a clause in the AGB that effectively gives the GAC right of veto over anything one of their members might object to (this was added on the eve of the Singapore announcement of opening of applications). Some work needs to be done to improve this, providing clarity to applicants in a future round.
- Concerns expressed by the IP community should be carefully considered. The strong opposition to the new gTLD programme from that sector, resulted in several years of delays and postponements to the opening of the applicant window. Any outstanding issues that remain unsolved in this respect, should be reviewed.
- The instrument known as the COI (a letter of credit in favor of ICANN for the sum of U$S 140.000 which, prior to signing the Registry Agreement with ICANN, must be deployed, thus inmobilizing this sum for several years), should be revised as it constitutes an additional entry barrier to communities and non-profit organizations who wish to apply for a new gTLD.
- The mechanisms developed by the JAS working group, to support applicants with financial constraints, need to be reviewed and improved. The very limited takeup of this option during the application phase, would appear to signal the need for change.
Regards
Tony Harris
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace ( https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Steve -- On behalf of Donuts Inc., I'm submitting the following initial topics for the DG's consideration and categorization in Monday's meeting. Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have questions. 1. Potential limiting of the next round to trademarked TLDs 2. Alternatives to auctioning to determine a prevailing applicant in a contention set 3. Use of private auctions vs. auctions administered only by ICANN 4. Adjustment of application fees (higher in some instances, lower in others) 5. Review of the community standard and whether it's subject to gaming 6. Potential efficiencies in IE and technical reviews; e.g., whether or not a registry services provider or applicant must be subject to review if one or either has passed all evaluations and is currently compliant with applicable standards 7. Review of / standard developed for NXD and name collisions PRIOR to the opening of a new round 8. Potential extension of rollout timing for TLDs from a new round 9. Examination of fee structure: e.g., no recurring fee until a TLD is in the root zone and available to the market 10. Review of trademark claims service and whether or not it's actually effective in preventing infringement 11. Examination of trademark standards in differing jurisdictions and whether or not they're subject to unfair gaming 12. Inclusion of special characters (e.g., other than ASCII and native language script) 13. Potential for single-letter TLDs 14. Review of geographic indicators for certain products (e.g., wine, cheese) and whether or not a standard should apply to second-level registrations 15. Whether or not generic TLDs in a new round should be permitted to be "closed" to most potential registrants 16. Review of vertical integration and its marketplace impact 17. Measure the scale of actual harm to IP interests and the effectiveness of RPMs exclusive to new TLDs and how they can apply to a new round I hope this is a helpful list. Again, let me know if questions. Regards, Mason Cole Mason Cole VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. ………………………………………… mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555 On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Hello, I believe this may have already been mentioned but I have not been able to find it and that is the issue of plurals, as it relates to existing TLDs and for this future round. It was an issue that I believe was not clearly addressed and needs to be in this next round Thanks Jeff On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Mason Cole <mason@donuts.co> wrote:
Dear Steve --
On behalf of Donuts Inc., I'm submitting the following initial topics for the DG's consideration and categorization in Monday's meeting. Please feel free to get in touch with me if you have questions.
1. Potential limiting of the next round to trademarked TLDs 2. Alternatives to auctioning to determine a prevailing applicant in a contention set 3. Use of private auctions vs. auctions administered only by ICANN 4. Adjustment of application fees (higher in some instances, lower in others) 5. Review of the community standard and whether it's subject to gaming 6. Potential efficiencies in IE and technical reviews; e.g., whether or not a registry services provider or applicant must be subject to review if one or either has passed all evaluations and is currently compliant with applicable standards 7. Review of / standard developed for NXD and name collisions PRIOR to the opening of a new round 8. Potential extension of rollout timing for TLDs from a new round 9. Examination of fee structure: e.g., no recurring fee until a TLD is in the root zone and available to the market 10. Review of trademark claims service and whether or not it's actually effective in preventing infringement 11. Examination of trademark standards in differing jurisdictions and whether or not they're subject to unfair gaming 12. Inclusion of special characters (e.g., other than ASCII and native language script) 13. Potential for single-letter TLDs 14. Review of geographic indicators for certain products (e.g., wine, cheese) and whether or not a standard should apply to second-level registrations 15. Whether or not generic TLDs in a new round should be permitted to be "closed" to most potential registrants 16. Review of vertical integration and its marketplace impact 17. Measure the scale of actual harm to IP interests and the effectiveness of RPMs exclusive to new TLDs and how they can apply to a new round
I hope this is a helpful list. Again, let me know if questions.
Regards,
Mason Cole
*Mason Cole * VP Communications & Industry Relations Donuts Inc. *………………………………* *……* *……* mason@donuts.co Ofc +1 503 908 7623 Cell +1 503 407 2555
On Sep 2, 2014, at 3:19 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace ( https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-- Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
Dear Steve, On behalf of CORE Association I submit the following topics: 1. As for application procedures: - Potential separate tracks for closed-to-registrations TLDs, open-to-all TLDs and community-restricted TLDs. - Real, but simplified technical, financial and operational requirements, instead of current, sometimes bureaucratic requirements. 2. As of TMCH: - Review of operations and usefulness. - Limit so-called mixed (graphics+with-text) trademarks to Claims, but not Sunrise. 3. Agreement: - Differentiate between closed and open TLDs (in the sense of "third-party registrations available or not"). - Clarify the RPM requirements beyond the current “trademarks” and “general public” (ie, other legitimate rights, specially for community-specific TLDs). Kind regards, Iliya Bazlyankov CORE Association On 3 September 2014 01:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace ( https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Dear Steve, I would also like to add some points from our point of view: 1.) Usage of AROS (Automated Registrar Onboarding System) 2.) “Standardization” of Registry Registrar Agreements. I wouldn’t go that far to say all RRA’s have to be the same, but it would help if they would be more similar. 3.) Reviewing Premium-Names, there are currently to many different ways of selling and maintaining them. 4.) Reviewing “Highly regulated TLDs”, how they should be handled. 5.) Reviewing Name Collision, it is a pain to explain to customers. 6.) More transparency in contracting (NDA’s, signed RRA, side letters, etc.). I doubt that every registrar has the same RRA signed and NDA’s are floating around before you actually get the RRA, etc. Best regards, Tobias On 03.09.2014, at 00:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
I would also raise another point: Reviewing TMCH. There is a good German article covering it http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-Trademark-Clearinghouse-und-die-n... For the non-German speakers; The article says that there are quite a number of new trademarks in the TMCH like “taxi”, “sex”, “auto”, “immobilen”, “cloud”, “bank”, “villa”, “blog”, “golf” and “party”. These trademarks are mostly "word and design mark” and if you look up for instance the trademark “immobilen” at the Austrian patent office it says "?I?M?M?O?B?I?L?I?E?N?”. The whole TMCH thing is quite hard to communicate to customers and we experienced that most of our customers are dropping out because of a claim notice. Well, you can argue that in both ways, but if the TMCH get “gamed” like that I don’t want to imagine how things will evolve in subsequents rounds. Thomas Rickert, who is also part of this discussion group, may explain it a bitter better than I do. (sorry Thomas to put you on the spot) Tobias On 08.09.2014, at 15:05, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I would also like to add some points from our point of view:
1.) Usage of AROS (Automated Registrar Onboarding System)
2.) “Standardization” of Registry Registrar Agreements. I wouldn’t go that far to say all RRA’s have to be the same, but it would help if they would be more similar.
3.) Reviewing Premium-Names, there are currently to many different ways of selling and maintaining them.
4.) Reviewing “Highly regulated TLDs”, how they should be handled.
5.) Reviewing Name Collision, it is a pain to explain to customers.
6.) More transparency in contracting (NDA’s, signed RRA, side letters, etc.). I doubt that every registrar has the same RRA signed and NDA’s are floating around before you actually get the RRA, etc.
Best regards, Tobias
On 03.09.2014, at 00:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Well, the fact that the TMCH will need some reform is pretty much obvious by now. A system that was once intended to protect the rights of a narrow select group has now become a tool for widespread abuse. Items that would have to be addressed prior to future rounds: - Widespread customer confusion caused by the pre-registration claims notice requirement - Suggested solution: Dropping this as a requirement for registration - Abuse of TMCH protection mechanism for generic term reservation - Suggested solution: Tougher requirements to get into the TMCH as well as to get the entries renewed. Terms that are generic should be excluded from TMCH protection. So should other types of entries clearly designed to game the system. Volker Am 10.09.2014 20:32, schrieb Tobias Sattler:
I would also raise another point: Reviewing TMCH.
There is a good German article covering it http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-Trademark-Clearinghouse-und-die-n...
For the non-German speakers; The article says that there are quite a number of new trademarks in the TMCH like "taxi", "sex", "auto", "immobilen", "cloud", "bank", "villa", "blog", "golf" and "party".
These trademarks are mostly "word and design mark" and if you look up for instance the trademark "immobilen" at the Austrian patent office it says "?I?M?M?O?B?I?L?I?E?N?".
The whole TMCH thing is quite hard to communicate to customers and we experienced that most of our customers are dropping out because of a claim notice. Well, you can argue that in both ways, but if the TMCH get "gamed" like that I don't want to imagine how things will evolve in subsequents rounds.
Thomas Rickert, who is also part of this discussion group, may explain it a bitter better than I do. (sorry Thomas to put you on the spot)
Tobias
On 08.09.2014, at 15:05, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de <mailto:sattler@united-domains.de>> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I would also like to add some points from our point of view:
1.) Usage of AROS (Automated Registrar Onboarding System)
2.) "Standardization" of Registry Registrar Agreements. I wouldn't go that far to say all RRA's have to be the same, but it would help if they would be more similar.
3.) Reviewing Premium-Names, there are currently to many different ways of selling and maintaining them.
4.) Reviewing "Highly regulated TLDs", how they should be handled.
5.) Reviewing Name Collision, it is a pain to explain to customers.
6.) More transparency in contracting (NDA's, signed RRA, side letters, etc.). I doubt that every registrar has the same RRA signed and NDA's are floating around before you actually get the RRA, etc.
Best regards, Tobias
On 03.09.2014, at 00:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Having the trademarks is one thing but they are being used to game the system trademark on the word “the” used to get The.Press in Sunrise trademark on “Holiday" used to get Holiday.Guide in Sunrise Trademark on “King” used to get King.Guide Trademark on Realty to get Sunrise on Realty.Guide Moreover some applicants are the one’s that applied with the TMCH to get the trademark to game the system Very truly yours, Michael H. Berkens President Worldwide Media, Inc. Get your Brand We have over 75,000 Premium Domains for sale http://www.MostWantedDomains.com Read our blog everyday for all the news and views from the domain industry: http://www.TheDomains.com On Sep 11, 2014, at 4:47 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> wrote:
Well, the fact that the TMCH will need some reform is pretty much obvious by now. A system that was once intended to protect the rights of a narrow select group has now become a tool for widespread abuse. Items that would have to be addressed prior to future rounds:
- Widespread customer confusion caused by the pre-registration claims notice requirement - Suggested solution: Dropping this as a requirement for registration - Abuse of TMCH protection mechanism for generic term reservation - Suggested solution: Tougher requirements to get into the TMCH as well as to get the entries renewed. Terms that are generic should be excluded from TMCH protection. So should other types of entries clearly designed to game the system.
Volker
Am 10.09.2014 20:32, schrieb Tobias Sattler:
I would also raise another point: Reviewing TMCH.
There is a good German article covering it http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-Trademark-Clearinghouse-und-die-n...
For the non-German speakers; The article says that there are quite a number of new trademarks in the TMCH like “taxi”, “sex”, “auto”, “immobilen”, “cloud”, “bank”, “villa”, “blog”, “golf” and “party”.
These trademarks are mostly "word and design mark” and if you look up for instance the trademark “immobilen” at the Austrian patent office it says "?I?M?M?O?B?I?L?I?E?N?”.
The whole TMCH thing is quite hard to communicate to customers and we experienced that most of our customers are dropping out because of a claim notice. Well, you can argue that in both ways, but if the TMCH get “gamed” like that I don’t want to imagine how things will evolve in subsequents rounds.
Thomas Rickert, who is also part of this discussion group, may explain it a bitter better than I do. (sorry Thomas to put you on the spot)
Tobias
On 08.09.2014, at 15:05, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I would also like to add some points from our point of view:
1.) Usage of AROS (Automated Registrar Onboarding System)
2.) “Standardization” of Registry Registrar Agreements. I wouldn’t go that far to say all RRA’s have to be the same, but it would help if they would be more similar.
3.) Reviewing Premium-Names, there are currently to many different ways of selling and maintaining them.
4.) Reviewing “Highly regulated TLDs”, how they should be handled.
5.) Reviewing Name Collision, it is a pain to explain to customers.
6.) More transparency in contracting (NDA’s, signed RRA, side letters, etc.). I doubt that every registrar has the same RRA signed and NDA’s are floating around before you actually get the RRA, etc.
Best regards, Tobias
On 03.09.2014, at 00:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tobias, all, I am more than happy to explain. The author wrote about generic terms that have been entered into the TMCH for the purpose of registering domain names during the sunrise period. I confirmed that a lot of trademarks have been applied for with the obvious intention to game the system by adding additional elements to the generic term or by registering the trademarks for unrelated classes of goods and services. The issue woud not have arisen - at least to that extent - if the original idea of a cut-off date, which was the day or the day before the board decision on the new gTLD program was taken in Paris, would have made its way to the final version of the AGB. The cut-off date is sill there, but now it only applies to treaty-based protection. This seems to be a drafting error, but the result is that we are now facing a situation where only Governments are prevented from gaming the system by creating treaties for the purpose of domain grabbing :-). Best, Thomas Am 10.09.2014 um 20:32 schrieb Tobias Sattler:
I would also raise another point: Reviewing TMCH.
There is a good German article covering it http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Das-Trademark-Clearinghouse-und-die-n...
For the non-German speakers; The article says that there are quite a number of new trademarks in the TMCH like “taxi”, “sex”, “auto”, “immobilen”, “cloud”, “bank”, “villa”, “blog”, “golf” and “party”.
These trademarks are mostly "word and design mark” and if you look up for instance the trademark “immobilen” at the Austrian patent office it says "?I?M?M?O?B?I?L?I?E?N?”.
The whole TMCH thing is quite hard to communicate to customers and we experienced that most of our customers are dropping out because of a claim notice. Well, you can argue that in both ways, but if the TMCH get “gamed” like that I don’t want to imagine how things will evolve in subsequents rounds.
Thomas Rickert, who is also part of this discussion group, may explain it a bitter better than I do. (sorry Thomas to put you on the spot)
Tobias
On 08.09.2014, at 15:05, Tobias Sattler <sattler@united-domains.de <mailto:sattler@united-domains.de>> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I would also like to add some points from our point of view:
1.) Usage of AROS (Automated Registrar Onboarding System)
2.) “Standardization” of Registry Registrar Agreements. I wouldn’t go that far to say all RRA’s have to be the same, but it would help if they would be more similar.
3.) Reviewing Premium-Names, there are currently to many different ways of selling and maintaining them.
4.) Reviewing “Highly regulated TLDs”, how they should be handled.
5.) Reviewing Name Collision, it is a pain to explain to customers.
6.) More transparency in contracting (NDA’s, signed RRA, side letters, etc.). I doubt that every registrar has the same RRA signed and NDA’s are floating around before you actually get the RRA, etc.
Best regards, Tobias
On 03.09.2014, at 00:19, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf).
Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not
preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
*Steven Chan* Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN *12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410 tel: +1.310.301.5800 fax: +1.310.823.8649 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUEWrnAAoJECGcZEVUvnjeqWIIAIyibieJqOfF1gBYq7cdx8La V/g+Th2Tqe5a12itGpb/OorS85FwR1IXr1/xd63Uyd4h2siw+faCITEnArqrriNV HaHhlAvO4jXWzWQQ0MOaF2n+4kSY2vFrHmxWC0oPUHjx+gJvzYH7jKK/gw97JpiS bjjkIWe8SxlBWSfT3is6+dMeIqqr0Zq2yGgE79FdTn316Ph2ahqGzPVqZoMUDb2N JFOqxc5vnVbXbhXKE7n9VCEP3Cb4eGH41KxXUy3vceVvnCOLFY+3yLcQatGri5LU G45to70Wyt6hD4wKcUL1Sb1YLS4n2SGpVqT4/S770QxFX+vS88sbiZCSujQRFP8= =kJkr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Just a place holder to say that I (and ALAC) have not yet put together our starting list, but you can expect one from us. Alan At 02/09/2014 06:19 PM, Steve Chan wrote:
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace (<https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace>https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here (<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
All, Apparently, there are some connection issues, so I am unable to participate to the call ... Below some initial topics I would like to put forward: 1) Accreditation program for back-end operators: have one evaluation done for back-end operators who are supporting applicants who are proposing standardised registry services (so applicants do not need to provide answers to the technical questions - only a copy of the agreement they have with the back-end registry operator; if non-standard registry services are provided, specific input can be provided on these points, all of this to streamline the evaluation process; 2) Streamlining evaluation process for escrow service providers: similar remark to the above; 3) Financial institutions: many applicants struggled with ICANN's COI requirements - it would be helpful if ICANN could provide specific guidance to financial institutions and - to some extent - also pre-approve the COI documents provided by these financial institutions; 4) See how different types of applicants can follow different evaluation paths, which are more tailored to the type of TLD they are applying for (brands, single registrant / single registry, ...); 5) Provide for an official communications platform where applicants can interact with third party stakeholder groups (more in particular the GAC) where issues are raised by these groups can be discussed; 6) Review the objection grounds, and the conditions for qualification: considering the fact that the vast majority of objections were dismissed by the Panels, it is obvious that there is an expectation gap here (I am not focusing on the rulings as such - I am just saying that it would be better if this expectation gap can be closed, especially considering the amount of fees that are to be paid by (unsuccessful) objectors); 7) Review the role, functions and powers of the Independent Objector (similar remark as above); Best regards, Bart Bart Lieben Advocaat – Avocat – Attorney-at-law Grétrystraat 54, 2018 Antwerpen (Belgium) Tel: +32 478 191990 E-mail: bart@bartlieben.com for Bart Lieben BVBA, with registered office at Grétrystraat 54, 2018 Antwerpen (Belgium) CONFIDENTIALITY. The contents of this email, including any attachments, are confidential, except where expressly stated otherwise. Furthermore, it may also be privileged. If received in error, please do not disclose the contents and/or any attachments to anyone, but notify the sender by return email and delete this email (and any attachments) from your system.
Dear DG Members,
This is a friendly reminder to please contribute your list of issues to the Wiki group workspace ( https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/3.+DG+Workspace) or to the email list. To provide a bit of additional clarification on what information might prove useful, as Bret spoke to on the first call, the issues can be big, can be small, specific to you or a group you represent, or what may be considered a widely held observation about the New gTLD Program. Issues should at a minimum include enough detail so that others can properly understand the issue. If you would like to make the issue description more detailed, you can consider the elements in the Request for Issue Report template found in Annex 2 of the PDP Manual found here ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16may13-en.pdf). Contributing a preliminary set of issues now would of course not preclude the submission of additional, or revision of, existing issues at a later date. Provided enough contributions are received, I would like to be able to take a first cut at categorizing those issues to facilitate the discussion at the next meeting, scheduled for Monday, 8 Sept 2014 at 14:00 UTC.
Please also be aware that it was discussed on the August 11th call that the group should aim to elect leaders at the subsequent meeting. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, please do so over the email list. From conversations over the list in early August, it seemed that the group was leaning towards perhaps a pair of co-chairs.
Best,
Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org
direct: +1.310.301.3886 mobile: +1.310.339.4410
tel: +1.310.301.5800
fax: +1.310.823.8649
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
Gnso-newgtld-dg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-dg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-dg
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alexander Schubert -
Anthony Harris -
Bart Lieben -
Iliya Bazlyankov -
Jeffrey Eckhaus -
Katim S. Touray -
Mason Cole -
Michael Berkens -
Steve Chan -
Thomas Rickert -
Tobias Sattler -
Volker Greimann