Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
 
Or are we talking about categories as applications.
 
I think the distinction is important.   I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s.   But not different application processes or paths.
 
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
 
Rob
 
From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM
To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "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
 
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to.
In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options".
Categories offer precision.
 
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, < Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:

Good point!

Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >

Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ

An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >

Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>

Betreff: 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 dre 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 sad 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 >

Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM

To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>

Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " 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

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 can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.

br> 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:(703)%20635-7514>

M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%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 diffferent 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 imo 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 tastask 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 othhe other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compae 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

kurt@kjpritz.com < mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>

+1.310.400.4184 <tel:(310)%20400-4184>

Skype: kjpritz

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

4)      Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 )

5)      Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Commentt 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 < mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.

Best,

Steve

Steven Chanâ€Â¨

Sr. Policy Managerâ€Â¨Ã¢€Â¨â‚¬Â¨

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536â€Â¨

steve.chan@icann.org < mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>

mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <tel:(310)%20339-4410>

office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <tel:(310)%20301-5800>

office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <tel:(310)%20823-8649>

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages< http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers >.

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

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

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________

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

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Content-Disposition: inline

X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:

       1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w==

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

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

 
--
Jean Guillon
6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle
92120 Montrouge
France

Phone: +33.631109837
Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon
Web: www.guillon.com