Re: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application Rounds

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i’ll speak personally, i haven’t checked with the constituency on this.  i 
would go a notch further than Jonathan — this item seems premature.  partly 
because of external events, partly because the rollout *is* taking longer than 
the framers of the Applicant Guidebook envisaged.  i’m not ruling it out, but 
my immediate reaction is quite muted.

mikey


On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:19 AM, Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Bret,
>  
> I think this item may have got eclipsed by all of the other activity on 
> Friday and over the weekend.
>  
> In any case, the point is noted and currently I think we can aim to fit this 
> into the weekend sessions.
>  
> The draft agenda for Wednesday is looking full-ish for a two hour meeting but 
> I am open to persuasion as to whether we discuss this on Wed.
>  
> Jonathan
>  
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bret@xxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 14 March 2014 15:39
> To: Council
> Subject: [council] Singapore Agenda Item: New gTLDs, Subsequent Application 
> Rounds
>  
> Dear Councillors,
>  
> I would like to propose that we add some time on our Singapore agenda for 
> discussing next steps in preparation for Round 2 of the new gTLD launch. As 
> you may know, in the Applicant Guidebook, ICANN wrote the following about 
> subsequent new gTLD rounds:
>  
> 1.1.6 Subsequent Application Rounds
>  
> ICANN’s goal is to launch subsequent gTLD application
> rounds as quickly as possible. The exact timing will be
> based on experiences gained and changes required after
> this round is completed. The goal is for the next application
> round to begin within one year of the close of the
> application submission period for the initial round.
>  
> ICANN has committed to reviewing the effects of the New
> gTLD Program on the operations of the root zone system
> after the first application round, and will defer the
> delegations in a second application round until it is
> determined that the delegations resulting from the first
> round did not jeopardize root zone system security or
> stability.
>  
> It is the policy of ICANN that there be subsequent
> application rounds, and that a systemized manner of
> applying for gTLDs be developed in the long term.
>  
> The "the close of the application submission period for the initial round” 
> was May, 2012, so the goal for the launch of Round 2 has already been missed, 
> by a material amount of time. I think we all would agree that many aspects of 
> the program, from the application process to the review and implementation, 
> should be reviewed and revisited. 
>  
> Let’s spend some time discussing “subsequent application rounds" and see if 
> we can come to a shared understanding of what the proper next steps would be, 
> including the role of the Council and the GNSO in the review process. 
>  
> I’m looking forward to seeing everyone in Singapore.
>  
>        Bret
>  
> --
> Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
> 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> — — — — — 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> --
> Bret Fausett, Esq. • General Counsel, Uniregistry, Inc. 
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 200 • Playa Vista, CA 90094-2536
> 310-496-5755 (T) • 310-985-1351 (M) • bret@xxxxxxxx
> — — — — — 
> 
> 
> 
>  


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP 
(ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)