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?