[council] RE: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
Microsoft Word - 2016-08-05-Steve-Crocker-to-James-Bladel.docxHi James:
We’ve shared Steve Crocker’s related letter within our constituency. Following
a discussion I’d like to communicate our preliminary thoughts:
The recent round of gTLDs resulted in a new "gaming" move for domainers. They
discontinued the practice of avidly buying all attractive names that became
available for resale purposes, and invested instead in registry concessions,
now a new secondary market is developing with gTLDs themselves (not the names).
The dominant registrars have cherry picked which new gTLDs to include in their
storefronts, thus becoming arbiters of the fate of newly launched gTLDs, since
exclusion from their registration sites is a tough disadvantage to overcome.
IOW registrars are designated the EXCLUSIVE sales channels for all new gTLDs,
but they are under no obligation to carry any of them in their domain name
A subsequent round might, given these developments, simply augment these
distortions, so "proceed with caution" would appear advisable.
1. Both the letter from the Board and the letter from the GNSO Council seem
to start with the assumption that there will necessarily be a subsequent round
of the new gTLD program. The ISPCP constituency hopes that a full discussion
about whether or not to have a further round is had by the community long
before work is done on building a new application process. It seems essential
that the marketplace and technical reviews are complete and considered by the
community. These need to be part of the foundation of any discussion of whether
or not to proceed with subsequent rounds of new gTLD applications.
2. In the event that a new gTLD application window is opened, no particular
type of gTLD should be allowed to determine the timing of the window. In
particular, all strings should have equal status as far as the timing of a
subsequent window. For example, a set of strings for a particular use or
function, should not be allowed to proceed early.
3. In the event that a new gTLD application window is opened, the policy
work in support of the new round should be complete prior to the application
process being developed. The ISPCP constituency finds the idea of iterative
development of application process to be impossible in the context of such a
complex procedure. An iterative approach fails to take into account the
interconnectedness of the application process – the development of a policy on
geographic names, for example, might have implications on what strings are
available and even the prohibition of certain names. The possibility of policy
development in one area having a knock-on effect in another area is something
we witnessed in the 2012 round. It would likely be a feature of subsequent
rounds and makes the iterative development of an application process unlikely
4. The Board question about timing raises questions beyond policy and the
development of an application process. The ISPCP constituency is extremely
concerned that not enough attention has been paid to technical aspects of the
deployment of new strings in the root zone. In particular, universal acceptance
and technical outreach are areas where the ICANN community needs a new,
comprehensive plan. That effort, to ensure that the technical aspects of new
gTLDs is addressed, will need to be done before a new application process can
commence – thus affecting the schedule of that process.
5. Another technical aspect that must be addressed prior to a new round
beginning is the relationship between the Internet’s underlying architecture
and the new gTLD program. Specifically, ICANN must improve its relationship
with the IETF to identify meaningful ways to cooperate in the reservation of
certain strings in the root. This relationship must also provide some reliable,
predictable, scalable and usable mechanism for reserving strings for special
use or because those strings, if allowed in the root, would affect the security
and stability of the DNS and tools built upon the DNS.
Procedurally, the ISPCP reserves the right to send our comment directly to the
We’re looking forward to further discussion within the community.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 7:13 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] FW: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James
Bladel, Chair, GNSO Council
Attached, please find a letter form Steve Crocker/ICANN Board to the Council,
regarding the work on subsequent rounds of New gTLDs. (Per Wendy’s note, the
letter has not yet been posted on the ICANN Correspondence page, but expected
Note that the letter contains a specific request to the GNSO:
‘For example, assuming all other review activities are completed, it would be
helpful to understand whether the GNSO believes that the entirety of the
current Subsequent Procedures PDP must be completed prior to advancing a new
application process under the current policy recommendations. The Board is
cognizant that it may be difficult to provide a firm answer at this stage of
the process as the reviews are still underway and the PDP is in its initial
stages of work, but if any consideration has been given in relation to whether
a future application process could proceed while policy work continues and be
iteratively applied to the process for allocating new gTLDs, or that a set of
critical issues could be identified to be addressed prior to a new application
process, the Board would welcome that input.
The Board would also welcome any elaboration on the expected time frame
outlined in the PDP Work Plan, as well as any additional points the GNSO might
wish to clarify for the Board in its efforts to support the various areas of
work underway in the multistakeholder community’.
I propose that we add this question/topic, and the letter itself, to our 1 SEP
meeting agenda as a discussion item, and that we examine ideas on how to
proceed on responding to this question. If this is amenable, I would also ask
Staff to draft a brief note to Steve, acknowledging the receipt of this letter
and noting that it would be discussed during our next meeting.
Thoughts on this approach?
From: Wendy Profit <wendy.profit@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, August 5, 2016 at 14:19
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry
<gnso-secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Icann-board ICANN
<icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, board-support <board-support@xxxxxxxxx>, Akram Atallah
<akram.atallah@xxxxxxxxx>, Erika Randall <erika.randall@xxxxxxxxx>, Daniel
Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, Eleeza Agopian
<eleeza.agopian@xxxxxxxxx>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>, Karen
Lentz <karen.lentz@xxxxxxxxx>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi@xxxxxxxxx>, Cristina
Subject: [Correspondence] Letter from Steve Crocker to James Bladel, Chair,
Dear James Bladel,
Please find the attached letter from Steve Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of
Directors regarding subsequent New gTLD rounds.
The letter will be posted shortly to the ICANN Correspondence and New gTLD
With warm regards,
ICANN Board Operations Specialist
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4633/12811 - Release Date: 08/15/16