[council] Re: ICANN Seeks Input on gTLD Batching

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
thank you very much for your contributions. There was some vivid debate behind 
the scenes, which I did not expect. In particular, there was no consensus on 
whether preference should be given to certain categories of TLDs. We have now 
chosen to highlight that this is no consensus position but that the absolute 
majority of the contributors were in favor of such categorization. I have 
included the final version of the comment below.

I will ask eco staff to set up a mailing list for such purposes so facilitate a 
discussion amongst all of us without disclosing all your e-mail addresses. 

Please let me know if you wish to be removed from this list or want additional 
contacts of your firm / organisation to be added.

Thanks,
Thomas


The below comments are made on behalf of eco, the Association of the German 
Internet Industry (www.eco.de). eco is the German Internet Industry Association 
with about 600 members from different Internet industry sectors. The 
association represents over 200 ISPs and Registrars as well as Registries.

First of all, ICANN should take all reasonable steps to increase the speed of 
evaluating all applications. There are synergies arising from the limited 
number of Registry Service Providers, which lead to partially congruent 
responses to the technical questions. Applicants that have applied for multiple 
strings may have used partially congruent information in business plans etc. 
Hence, the evaluation process can be streamlined without any loss of quality by 
identifying the variations and determining their impact on the overall 
assessment. Where possible, applications should be assigned to evaluators in a 
manner that allows for the common evaluation of substantially similar 
applications.

We also believe that there will be a natural sequencing after the publication 
of the results of the initial evaluation for all applications due to 
objections, withdrawals, GAC Advice and contentions, but also due to factors 
beyond ICANN's control since applicants need to return signed contracts and 
also apply for the delegation, which provides for additional sequencing. 

Additionally, all applicants should be given the opportunity to opt for their 
TLD being delegated at a later stage. ICANN should consider to offer financial 
incentives for those who opt out.

Secondly, the ICANN Community has been advised that the effects of delegating 
new TLDs into the root zone will be monitored and analyzed. ICANN should seek 
more information on how this process is envisaged by the technical experts. How 
many TLDs will they allow to be delegated at first? Will there be a pause for 
analysis afterwards? How long might such pause be? What will be the sequence of 
delegations afterwards?
ICANN should synchronize its metering with the plans of the technical experts, 
if possible.  

Should additional metering be needed, the sequence should be as follows:

The absolute majority of eco members that have contributed to this comment are 
in favor of giving preference to geoTLDs, IDNs and community TLDs..

All applicants will be sent the contracts for execution at the same time, 
unless their application requires an extended evaluation. Natural sequencing in 
contract negotiation and execution as well as applying for delegation will 
provide for natural sequencing.

Afterwards, non objected TLDs will be handled in the same manner, unless there 
is GAC Advice, extended evaluation or a contention.

After that, those who opted out will be handled in the same manner, unless  
there is GAC Advice, extended evaluation or a contention.

For cases where there is GAC Advice, an extended evaluation or a contention, 
the handling will occur as the cases are resolved.


Am 14.08.2012 um 14:02 schrieb Thomas Rickert:

> Dear all,
> thank you for the responses you sent to me. I have amalgamated them into the 
> following statement. We have not yet answered the question how ICANN should 
> sequence the handling even if we apply the mechanisms we propose. 
> 
> Should ICANN send the contracts to all IDNs and geoTLDs at the same time? How 
> should ICANN sequence within the piles of applications. 
> 
> I have included a proposal on that at the end of the statement. Please 
> provide your feedback by Friday 10 AM CEST. 
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> The below comments are made on behalf of eco, the Association of the German 
> Internet Industry (www.eco.de). eco is the German Internet Industry 
> Association with about 600 members from different Internet industry sectors. 
> The association represents over 200 ISPs and Registrars as well as Registries.
> 
> First of all, ICANN should take all reasonable steps to increase the speed of 
> evaluating all applications. There are synergies arising from the limited 
> number of Registry Service Providers, which lead to partially congruent 
> responses to the technical questions. Applicants that have applied for 
> multiple strings may have used partially congruent information in business 
> plans etc. Hence, the evaluation process can be streamlined without any loss 
> of quality by identifying the variations and determining their impact on the 
> overall assessment. Where possible, applications should be assigned to 
> evaluators in a manner that allows for the common evaluation of substantially 
> similar applications.
> 
> We also believe that there will be a natural sequencing after the publication 
> the results of the initial evaluation for all applications due to objections, 
> withdrawals, GAC Advice and contentions, but also due to factors beyond 
> ICANN's control since applicants need to return signed contracts and also 
> apply for the delegation, which provides for additional sequencing. 
> 
> Additionally, all applicants should be given the opportunity to opt for their 
> TLD being delegated at a later stage. 
> 
> Secondly, the ICANN Community has been advised that the effects of delegating 
> new TLDs into the root zone will be monitored and analyzed. ICANN should seek 
> more information on how this process is envisaged by the technical experts. 
> How many TLDs will they allow to be delegated at first? Will there be a pause 
> for analysis afterwards? How long might such pause be? What will be the 
> sequence of delegations afterwards?
> ICANN should synchronize its metering with the plans of the technical 
> experts, if possible.  
> 
> Should the opt-out not provide for sufficient results, IDNs and geoTLDs 
> should go first. The reason for that is that namespaces in these TLDs serve 
> the global public interest in particular. Should additional metering be 
> needed, the sequence should be as follows:
> 
> All applicants for geoTLDs and IDNs will be sent the contracts for execution 
> at the same time, unless their application requires an extended evaluation. 
> Natural sequencing in contract negotiation and execution as well as applying 
> for delegation will provide for natural sequencing.
> 
> Afterwards, non objected TLDs will be handled in the same manner, unless 
> there is GAC Advice, extended evaluation or a contention.
> 
> After that, those who opted out will be handled in the same manner, unless  
> there is GAC Advice, extended evaluation or a contention.
> 
> For cases where there is GAC Advice, an extended evaluation or a contention, 
> the handling will occur as the cases are resolved.
> 
> 
> Am 31.07.2012 um 20:20 schrieb Thomas Rickert:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> you will have heard that ICANN has recently published an announcement, due 
>> to which it seeks input on gTLD Batching, see
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-29jul12-en.htm
>> 
>> eco is planning to submit a comment. 
>> 
>> With this e-mail I would like to encourage all of you to provide me with 
>> input by August 5th.
>> 
>> I will amalgamate your input into one statement and send it to this list for 
>> your review. 
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, please let me know if 
>> you would like me to include other / additional contacts inside your company.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Thomas Rickert
>> 
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
>> Director Names & Numbers
>> 
>> -------------------------------------
>> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>> 
>> Lichtstraße 43h
>> 50825 Köln
>> 
>> Fon:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 0
>> Fax:    +49 (0) 221 - 70 00 48 - 111
>> E-Mail: thomas.rickert@xxxxxx
>> Web:    http://www.eco.de
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> eco - Verband der deutschen Internetwirtschaft e.V.
>> Geschäftsführer: Harald A. Summa
>> Vorstand: Prof. Michael Rotert (Vorsitzender), Oliver Süme (stv.
>> Vorsitzender), Klaus Landefeld, Thomas von Bülow, Felix Höger
>> Vereinsregister: Amtsgericht Köln, VR 14478
>> Sitz des Vereins: Köln
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
> Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
> Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
> HRB 9262, AG Bonn
> 
> Büro / Office Bonn:
> Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0
> 
> Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
> Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
> Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56
> 
> Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66
> 
> mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
> skype-id: trickert
> web: www.anwaelte.de
> 

___________________________________________________________
Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt
Schollmeyer &  Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm)
Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert
HRB 9262, AG Bonn

Büro / Office Bonn:
Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0

Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.:
Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56

Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66

mailto: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx
skype-id: trickert
web: www.anwaelte.de