Hi all: I have not been part of the discussion so please forgive my taking the liberty to comment. I agree with Anne’s points. If we zoom up from the operational details and consider the overall policy that we are currently constructing, I think it is worthwhile for us to state that, as a policy, “the gTLD Program should be administered in a way that encourages innovation.” Or maybe “…in a way that encourages innovation, competition and choice.” Given that policy, then naturally ICANN would not charge additional fees, nor delay applications with innovative uses for the TLD. Practically speaking (and to the extent we offer implementation advice), given that an RSEP is supposed to take 15 days and the (somewhat rare) technical review takes 45 days, I see no reason why those reviews cannot happen easily within the initial evaluation period. It may be slightly inefficient to conduct those RSEP reviews before the application passes the other substantive reviews but if it is our policy to encourage innovation, then that inefficiency is a small price to pay. While we have not seen great innovation to date, I don’t think that should change our thinking. I have worked with one TLD that does have some great (I think) ideas for alternative uses and I know there are some others. This should not dissuade us from our policies that we lay the most fertile ground for innovation that we can. Thanks & regards, Kurt
On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:07 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Anne, <>
I would like to apologize if I have in any way created a hostile environment for anyone in any work track or in the Working Group. I will try to be more cognizant of my actions in the future. It certainly was not my intent to stifle ideas coming forward. Just the opposite was intended when I asked that you submit a proposal that achieved the goals of efficiency, expediency, but also encouraged innovation.
I view part of my job as overall co-chair to make sure all viewpoints are expressed and then to get Working Group members to try to think outside of the box, put themselves in the shoes of the other sides and try to come up with a compromise solution that can attempt to satisfy all points (or as many as possible).
You have presented a proposal and we absolutely need to make sure that proposal is considered. Rubens has presented his strawperson, you have presented yours. Is there a way to merge the two? There may be other proposals out there and I strongly encourage those to come forward.
On the issue of whether applicants that propose new services should pay to have these new services reviewed, this is a complex issues. On the one hand, as you state, it may be a disincentive to propose new innovative services. On the other hand, reviewing new services does come with a cost for evaluation. New services may require a different skill set of reviewers that reviewing the existing services. Reviewing new services may require a more thorough security analysis, competition analysis, etc. than existing services (which are already reviewed and proven). So not charging those applicants that propose new services for the evaluation of those new services results in those that do not propose new types of registry services subsidizing those that do. From a policy perspective, that may be ok, but it is a policy decision we should all make.
FYI, the existing Registry Agreements do require registries to pay the costs of proposing new registry services if a Technical Panel has to be called in to review the new services. I believe there may be a cap of $50,000, but I could be confusing that with the 2012 Round costs.
Thanks for keeping the discussion going and I hope you do feel free expressing your ideas/proposals going forward. If not, please bring that to my attention (or to Avri’s attention if you are more comfortable with that). I am trying my best to be neutral and encourage discussion, but I am not infallible.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:42 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Rubens Kuhl' <rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
And please don’t tell me I am free to file a complaint. That is not the answer. There were two people in chat who supported the notion of two tracks and you want to ignore that because it is not your solution. This is not the proper role for a co-chair.
You should be raising the different proposals and asking for full discussion of them. Jeff specifically asked me for a proposal. I had to force you to take my comment to communicate that proposal. Then two other people supported it.
I have never before experienced such a biased working group environment. Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image001.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:33 PM To: 'Rubens Kuhl' Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
Frankly, most people aren’t expressing opinions at this time on the list or on the call. I am very surprised as I think the role of a Co-Chair (and the Sub Pro Chairs) is to facilitate discussion. I don’t see that happening here. The environment from you and from Jeff is hostile.
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image002.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br <mailto:rubensk@nic.br>] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:28 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4] Registry Services straw-person
On Aug 31, 2017, at 8:22 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Rubens, I don’ t have an objection to establishing 2 tracks – one for established services evaluation and one for new proposed services evaluation.
You don't, but most people do, as both the call and the mailing list discussion have shown.
I do object to charging more for an application that proposes new services – it’s against the goal of innovation and creativity.
Something that can be raised for applicant support. It's a worthy cause, and lots of jurisdiction give tax breaks to R&D, innovation, entrepreneurship ... it's just out of scope for WT4.
I do object to dealing with proposals for new services in the contracting phase. It is not transparent to the community.
Not including the community in registry services reviews is how current GNSO policy is. This WG is not chartered to review it.
Rubens
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4>