We are doing several interviews related to new gTLDs in the region. Guess the main problem for the region is knowledge of ICANN in the first place, and what can mean TLDs for them.
First round we certainly had no time, because it was one-by-one effort in a large region, without a serious promotion from ICANN.
Bus I believe there is room for much more applicants that are just starting to know about the program…
Our results will certainly help the figure out how to deal with South Hemisphere.
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From:
<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of KURT PRITZ <kurt@kjpritz.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:41 PM
To: "policy@paulmcgrady.com" <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair
In response to Paul:
First, it has nothing to do with application fees.
During the ICANN meeting in Helsinki there were a number of comments on the topic of timing of the next round made to the ICANN Board in public fora. The comments were mostly eloquent, on the mark and included the following points:
- one of the conditions to launching the 2012 round was to have another round in a short period of time to afford the same opportunity to those that might not be reached by the ICANN communications in time
- eight years between rounds is incongruent with the goal of a smoothly running, well-managed process; in fact, it is embarrassing for the whole multistakeholder model
- there is no point of accountability (person, department, organization) for getting the next round launched in a timely matter
- the set of postulated, highly dreaded, highly harmful outcomes as a result of new gTLDs did not materialize
- we spent years developing the current policy and its implementation model, the path to a close-in-time next round could never be to re-examine every aspect of that policy but rather to make mid-course corrections on the areas needing that
In my opinion, some or all of these points evidently resonated with the Board. I believe the letter was the result of those interchanges at the Helsinki meeting.
Kurt
--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair
From: policy@paulmcgrady.com
Date: 8/16/16 1:05 pm
To: "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Thanks Jeff.
Is there any indication of why this letter was sent? Is it pressure from groups wanting another round for business reasons? Is ICANN in need of more application money? I don't mind feeling under a bit of pressure from the Board to move with all due speed, but I'd like to understand the "why" here. Any thoughts (from you or from the list)?
Best,
Paul
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council
Chair
From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Date: Tue, August 09, 2016 10:45 am
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
From: Jeff Neuman
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:44 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Cc: James Bladel (jbladel@godaddy.com) <jbladel@godaddy.com>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Subject: Letter from Steve Crocker to GNSO Council Chair
All,
I came across this letter in passing and thought it was useful to send to the group as it relates to our work. One of the items I would like to ask each work track to think about is the key question raised here:, namely within the work tracks, “Are there a set of critical issues that can be identified to be addressed prior to a new application process?” Or, is it the view of the Community that the entire PDP must be completed prior to a new process?
I believe the identification of these issues is a critical first step of the work tracks and will help to produce work plans for the respective tracks. I am cc’ing GNSO Council leadership on this email to keep them in the loop.
Best regards,
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA| Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg