Just because the 2012 round didn't quite implement the CPE and corresponding policies and procedures properly does not mean that it cannot be done better.  In some ways, we should not limit our "review" on the 2012 round, but probably should also compare the experience with 2004 and 2000 rounds.

 

A rather important lesson we learned from the 2012 round, I think, is to avoid the "evaluation phobia" and pushing everything towards the auctions, but rather to address specifically how to make any panel evaluation work better to elect/select the "best" (most appropriate) registry operator that would make sense for the ICANN community and more importantly the Internet community at large.

 

Edmon

 

 

 

 

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jamie Baxter
Sent: Monday, 15 May 2017 22:49 PM
To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

 

I agree with Michele. What also needs to be included in the discussion is ways to improve implementation and transparency, since it appears to be at the root of many issues related to community applications.

 

Jamie

 

Jamie Baxter
VP of Marketing
dotgay LLC
307 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1807
New York, NY 10001
212-235-5154
jamie@dotgay.com
www.dotgay.com

Please join us on Facebook at www.facebook.dotgay.com
and follow us at www.twitter.com/dotgay 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
From: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com>
Date: Mon, May 15, 2017 9:30 am
To: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman
<jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>

Martin

 

100% agree

 

I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored.

 

After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed.

For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation.

 

Regards


Michele

 

 

--

Mr Michele Neylon

Blacknight Solutions

Hosting, Colocation & Domains

Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072

Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090

-------------------------------

Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty

Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,

Ireland  Company No.: 370845

 

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

 

That would be helpful.

 

I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.

 

Kind regards,

 

Martin

 

Martin Sutton

Executive Director

Brand Registry Group

 

On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:

 

 

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: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

 

Hi Everyone:

 

In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551).

 

It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. 

 

Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. 

 

Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. 

 

The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. 

 

In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. 

 

The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
 
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. 

 

Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. 

 

While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.

 

I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.

 

Best regards,

 

Kurt

 

________________

Kurt Pritz

+1.310.400.4184

Skype: kjpritz

 

 

 

 

 

On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:

 

Dear WG Members,

 

Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

 

1)       Welcome/SOIs 

2)       Work Track Updates 

3)       GDD Summit Recap 

5)       Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en

6)       ICANN59 Planning 

7)       AOB

 

If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

Steven Chan


Sr. Policy Manager



 

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536


mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649

 

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

 

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

 

_______________________________________________
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

 

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg