200 applications is a 'low-activity' scenario in ICANN planning documents, and 400 applications is the 'expected case' scenario Note that this is applications, not strings. As the hearing was looking at how many strings might end up in the root the number of applications (whatever it is) needs to be reduced for two factors: 1. Some applications will fail; and 2. Some strings will have multiple applications (e.g. there might be 10 applications for WEB) Based on my interactions with the applicant community I think we'll end up with 200 to 300 new TLDs in the root over the next 12 to 24 months - so about a doubling of what we have now. The most unpredictable variable in this is 'brand' TLDs (like .NOKIA). Estimates vary widely on how many of these we'll see With respect to postponing a June 20 decision I don't think there's any new information on the table, so I think a decision should be made in June -- Lets proceed, or lets drop the program - but lets make a decision. If we proceed, as I think we should, we have an ongoing ability to adjust things like trademark RPMs. There's only one substantive thing the trademark community are asking for that isn't already in the Guidebook -- the GPML (Globally Protected Marks List). For all the reasons documented over the last 2 years the GPML is bad policy (note: not even the GAC supports it). Apart from this GPML the trademark lobby have been given all the substantive things they've demanded (in some cases more - e.g. the STI and IRT recommended implementation of either a Sunrise or a Claims period but the Guidebook now makes both of them mandatory). Bottom line is that new TLDs will be immeasurably safer places for trademarks than existing TLDs. Richard On May 4, 2011, at 10:21 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
In today's oversight hearing, Kurt Pritz pegged the number of probable new first-round gTLDs at 200. This is a number lower than I recall having been mentioned before. Is my memory faulty, or is this a new development?
Also, I got the distinct impression that the congress-critters were asking ICANN to postpone Peter's planned "party" as further oversight hearings may be required.
Curious to know what other impressions the folks on this list came away with... ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------