Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: [] Updated Agenda for 27 January Consultation

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

The trademark community have supported a COI like the one currently in the AG

INTA,  for example, asked that it cover "5 to 7 years of registry operation"  
(rather than the current 3 years)

Like many of the costs built into the TLD evaluation process/ registry business 
operations,   the COI is  supported by the trademark lobby.  There are many, 
many other
'protections' built into the process that add to applicant cost.

RT


On Jan 24, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Avri,
> 
> I haven't found an expression of the rational(s) for the COI, though the 
> addenda to Thursday's meeting provides a rational for the applicant's 
> affirmative act of providing a COI prior to the date of committing the 
> application.
> 
> As the COI committed resources are unconditionally granted to ICANN, which 
> may be less motivated than a community in the well-being of its registry, the 
> "saving" presumption may not be correct.
> 
> I haven't found a public comment requesting a COI like vehicle or offering a 
> rational for a COI like capability, so this appears to be the work of staff, 
> not the community, and staff's rational is not yet disclosed, though I've 
> asked (repeatedly).
> 
> Eric
> 
> On 1/24/11 4:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I though the issue was the time it took to save a failing TLD and how one 
>> might go about that differently in some cases - especially the JAS defined 
>> case. I did not think the issue was the time it took to actually die.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 24 Jan 2011, at 15:11, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Richard,
>>> 
>>>> ... I assume the response will be that cash is the best form of security.
>>> 
>>> There are assumptions built into this.
>>> 
>>> What exactly are we securing? Is .shoe the same as .yiddish?
>>> 
>>> The former is a for-profit actor, possibly amounting to one person with 
>>> sufficient resources to cause a corporate shell to be created, a 
>>> application authored, and some service agreements entered into. The latter 
>>> is the creation of a linguistic and cultural community.
>>> 
>>> Does "fail" mean the same thing for both standard and community-based 
>>> applications?
>>> 
>>> Why are we securing? Did anyone miss .pro? Other than the consolidation 
>>> issue, did anyone care when .name was acquired by VGRS?
>>> 
>>> Why do we care, and why do we care for just 36 months? Are we moving the 
>>> ".bug goes .splat" moment out to 2015 just to move bad news into the 
>>> future, or does 36 months of buy something worth having?
>>> 
>>> Suppose no transition operator can be found, and no recovery from the 
>>> triggering cause occurs. What is the difference between running out of COI 
>>> budget at failure+36months and failure now?
>>> 
>>> I know you've looked at the time for a registrant to re-brand, which makes 
>>> sense for the .shoe registrants, but the .yiddish registrants don't have 
>>> another generic label to incorporate into their "brands".
>>> 
>>> Turning to the continuity-operator-also-failing, we know that at least one 
>>> existing ccTLD operator will apply for a gTLD. And they will use their 
>>> existing platform, and optionally (given the VI outcome), augment by one or 
>>> more registrars their existing set of capabilities.
>>> 
>>> Now suppose this gTLD registry "fails". How is this different from the 
>>> second (and subsequent) registries some ccTLD operators are now starting up 
>>> through the ccTLD IDN FastTrack, which provides them with one or more 
>>> additional iso3166-equivalent delegations?
>>> 
>>> If we don't care when a ccTLD registry fails, and we're not going to care 
>>> when a ccTLD IDN FT acquired registry fails, why are we going to care when 
>>> a gTLD acquired by a ccTLD operator fails, or be concerned that the ability 
>>> of a ccTLD operator to provide continuity operations may not exist?
>>> 
>>> If cash is the only reliable tool, then applications from ccTLDs, or which 
>>> propose to use ccTLDs as backends are problematic, since we don't take an 
>>> operational interest in these now, and any contract will only touch the 
>>> gTLD service surface of that ccTLD operator's capabilities.
>>> 
>>> Personally, I don't think applications by existing facilities-based ccTLD 
>>> operators are any less credible than applications by new for-profit 
>>> registry operators.
>>> 
>>> Finally, and to the JAS problem: should the needs-qualified applicants even 
>>> provide COI resources to ICANN? Shouldn't the diversity and competition 
>>> interests result in ICANN providing the COI resources to the applicants?
>>> 
>>> And so far staff haven't decided if they will respond.
>>> 
>>> Eric
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>