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> Resending as I mistakenly put Volker on this email as opposed to Donna. Sorry for the duplication. 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 or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com 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 E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com 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
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<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Date: Tue, August 09, 2016 10:45 am To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Resending as I mistakenly put Volker on this email as opposed to Donna. Sorry for the duplication. 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: Jeff Neuman Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 1:44 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: James Bladel (jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>) <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest@acu.edu.au>>; Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto: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 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 ________________________________ _______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Yes, organizations such as mine, New York University, unaware of the first round, had an expectation that we would have to wait 2 or 3 years. So, it didn't seem too bad. After 3 years, 2015, I was told 3 more years. Now, after 4 years, it's going to be 4 more years? Bad pattern here! We really need our gTLD to do our global business. And we are now impatient, and I have complained broadly. I completely agree with the comment: - 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 On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:41 PM, <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
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>
Resending as I mistakenly put Volker on this email as opposed to Donna. Sorry for the duplication.
*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 or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com 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 E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Em 17 de ago de 2016, à(s) 18:37:000, David Ackerman <david@nyu.edu> escreveu:
Yes, organizations such as mine, New York University, unaware of the first round, had an expectation that we would have to wait 2 or 3 years. So, it didn't seem too bad.
After 3 years, 2015, I was told 3 more years. Now, after 4 years, it's going to be 4 more years? Bad pattern here!
We really need our gTLD to do our global business. And we are now impatient, and I have complained broadly.
I completely agree with the comment: 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
David, Although it is indeed "subprime" compared to other value chains, the presumptive renewal component of registry contracts pushes the community to make things right, for some definition of it, rather than fast. So, one question that we could ask is whether applicants are willing to trade long-term security for time-to-market. For instance, contracts without presumptive renewal that could be placed for competitive rebid or a new round of objections at the end of a initial (and shorter) first term (3 or 5 years instead of 10 years). Rubens
participants (5)
-
David Ackerman -
kurt＠kjpritz.com -
policy＠paulmcgrady.com -
Rubens Kuhl -
Vanda Scartezini