Discussion group new gTLDs subsequent rounds

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Avri,

thank you very much, you did a terrific job and I am sorry that I put
burden on you.
I see here that discussion group has advanced discussion in several issues.
definitely, revisiting the work done for supporting applicants from
developing countries is necessary.

Best,

Rafik



2014-09-23 6:26 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> hi,
>
> So Rafik tells me off list that what what he wanted me to do was talk
> about new gTLDS (generic top level domains).
>
> I have just joined the GNSO's (Generic names supporting organization)
> Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds  (DGNGSR).
> <
> https://community.icann.org/display/DGNGSR/Discussion+Group+%28DG%29+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+Home
> >
> It is a large group, lots of members and lots of maillist observers.
>
> This is the first discussion group I know of.  It was initiated by the
> GNSO to start collecting issues that should be dealt with before there
> is another round.  I don't think any of us know what a discussion group
> does other than discussion, and probably report back to the GNSO about
> the discussions.
>
> Staff is going to collect the issues and we are going to fill out a
> templates about the issues.  I have attached a copy of the template for
> those interested in templates.
>
> We are just starting to collect items.
>
> My first  contribution of issues were:
>
> - we did a terrible job of out reach and inclusion to developing
> economies in the round and there must be remediation
>
> - we did a terrible job of support for communities in the round and
> there must be remediation.
>
> - there must be appeals on name confusion determinations
>
> - i think that now that categories of gTLD have been well established we
> need different application procedures per type
>
> - we must avoid a lot of the processes that we are currently using as
> they are confusing and they do not meet the first principle of the
> original new gTLD recommendations - predictability.
>
> - i also argue against another general round but for specific rounds.
> for example the remedial rounds.  I think we should be heading toward
> some sort of rolling application process, perhaps rounds of a day to
> avoid digital archery effect (the one most technical prowess get there
> first for a first come first serve)
>
> - i think that when there is name contention the contender should have
> the chance to negotiate among themselves to take different related tlds:
> my example being if 3 apply for bear, one can have grizzly, one can have
> panda and one can have babybear.
>
> (but i have not filled out any templates yet - if anyone wants to fill
> one out, i can submit it, though you probably should join the list and
> submit it yourself)
>
> As the conversations move on and as I know more, I will say more.  BTW,
> At-Large also has a group talking about this, and I am in that group
> too.  But I just joined last week, so do not know much, other then they
> seem to care about issues dealing with developing economies and
> communities too.  The GNSO group is open to At-Large as the AtLarge
> group is open to NCSG.
>
> As for how all this relates to the doc I forwarded, not sure yet.  but
> at the very least outcomes from the Discussion Group and the staff
> report will both end up being considered as part of any issue report to
> be created before another new gTLD PDP (Policy Development process) is
> decided on.
>
> avri
>
> PS, there are other NC Types (non commercial types) on the WG already.
> Some even on this list. I am sure they can add more to what I have
> mentioned.
>
>
> Rafik, is that what you wanted?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20140922/f893982a/attachment.htm>