Jeff, One small clarification. The FCFS phase MUST begin immediately after the round 2. There can’t be any time between the two. If there is, you will create a situation where there is again pent up demand. One has to flow into the other or you will have a race condition that we are trying to avoid. You would not need a wait list service. You could allow a second application if you wanted to, that would only be processed if the first failed. Ie: its not like a SLD where there is a check command that says taken. Anyone could apply for anything. But the date of application takes priority. Think of it like the trademark or patent offices now. Whoever gets there first has the priority application. Rob From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "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 Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! 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-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; 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 OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto: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 Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto: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 am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto: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 Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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 martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. 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<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto: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_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). 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, “impossibleâ€) 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 ¢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’? T¢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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg