Dear Colleagues, As we embark on this effort to help ICANN improve its process for the approval of new gTLDs, I encourage us to consider at least the following: - To the extent that something worked reasonably well, let’s not reinvent the wheel if it’s not necessary. This would include not spending a tremendous amount of time wordsmithing policy principles, recommendations, etc. unless it absolutely adds value to the next iteration of a New gTLD Program. - In my opinion, the process for the last round was in some respects over-engineered and having been part of ICANN staff at that time I know there was an effort to attempt to account for every conceivable wrinkle via some process (e.g., dispute resolution procedures, objections). Unfortunately this approach not only led to several significant delays, but also resulted in the Applicant Guidebook being modified numerous times before ICANN opened the application window. The process was supposed to be that all applicants would know and play by the same set of rules before applications were accepted and we all know how that turned out. Let’s not unnecessarily repeat this kind of approach. - Focus on the elements that were just plain bad and did a disservice to stakeholders in the process. There are probably a dozen or so pieces of the process that either did not work as intended (e.g., applicant support program, community applications, objections) and then some pieces that are just plain failures in my view (e.g., permitting plurals of strings, ICANN’s accountability mechanisms and particularly that of the Ombudsman with regard to disputes). For example, many stakeholders have called for the development of appeals mechanisms to challenge results of certain processes rather than what’s currently available through ICANN. This may be something from the group to consider. As a new gTLD registry operator, determining how much time to spend on “ICANN” vs. serving the needs of the communities fTLD represents is not a tough call. On the one hand, all registry operators have businesses to run and stakeholders to serve. On the other hand, and I think many of you share the same view, we feel committed to improving ICANN for the benefit of all stakeholders regardless of whether they choose to participate directly or watch from the sidelines. I’d rather see us spend our time and energy improving the process by focusing on what didn’t work and what makes sense to consider adding vs. going backwards and attempting to recreate much of the program from scratch. To all of you committed to this important work, thank you. Craig Schwartz Managing Director fTLD Registry Services, LLC 600 13th Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Office: +1 202 589 2532 Cellular: +1 202 236 1154 Skype: craig-schwartz Twitter: <https://twitter.com/fTLD_Registry> @fTLD_Registry Please visit us at <https://www.ftld.com/> www.ftld.com and <https://www.register.bank/> www.register.bank