<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23942">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Hi, Holly,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>In addition, as CCT-RT's initial report asked to
collect more data, the Board's comment reminded the team to avoid expensive
data collecting. As I remember, that was the Board's only formal reply to
CCT-RT's initial report. This is on top of objections from contracted
parties citing business confidentiality. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Thus, collecting much more data for a more thorough
analysis would not seem to be easy, at least for the time being.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Kaili</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=carlosraul@gutierrez.se href="mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se">Carlos
Raul Gutierrez</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>To:</B> <A title=at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</A>
; <A title=h.raiche@internode.on.net
href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">h.raiche@internode.on.net</A> ; <A
title=mail@christopherwilkinson.eu
href="mailto:mail@christopherwilkinson.eu CW">mail@christopherwilkinson.eu
CW</A> ; <A title=at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large Worldwide</A> ; <A
title=jlaprise@gmail.com href="mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com">John Laprise</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 16, 2018 4:23 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en]
Vistaprint is abandoning .vista</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Dear Holly,<BR><BR>The only data the CCT RT found at it's
inception, was the first round of a (very expensive) qualitative survey. And
even that one had to be adapted for the wonderful round.<BR><BR>In fact, many
initial recommensations of the CCT RT were to ask for reasonable quantitative
market data series. Very much aligned with the desire to make ICANN a data
driven organization.<BR><BR>We all are on the sidelines expecting good hard
market (wholesale and retail) data and the output of so many other efforts and
new job descriptions that continue to accumulate.<BR><BR>Best<BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On July 15, 2018 2:35:24 PM GMT+02:00, <A
href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">h.raiche@internode.on.net</A> wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>Agree with both John and Christopher.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The reports on Competition, Consumer choice and Trust was supposed to
give us a good picture on those aspects of the outcomes of the new gTLD
program and, so some extend, there are some answers, but there are also a
lot of blanks. And yes, it would be good to see a final analysis of
the new gTLDs.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But then ALAC has, for some time, said we would like to see final
results of the first round before anything more happens.....</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Holly<BR></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>
<DIV style="WIDTH: 100%; BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228)">
<DIV style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</DIV>"mail@christopherwilkinson.eu
CW" <mail@christopherwilkinson.eu></DIV><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</DIV>"At-Large Worldwide"
<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "John Laprise"
<jlaprise@gmail.com><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</DIV><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</DIV>Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:59:45 +0200
(CEST)<BR>
<DIV style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</DIV>Re: [At-Large]
[lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista<BR><BR><BR>
<P>Dear John:</P>
<P>Thankyou. In so far as your feelings about the new gTLDs mirror those
of others, I agree. However, as a 'facts-based' economist I would really
like to see a statistical report from ICANN about the results,
business and otherwise, of the 2012 programme. <BR><BR>It is not
reassuring that GNSO is going so far down the road towards the 'next
round' in the absence of a serious appraisal of the results of the
previous round. <BR><BR>> I've seen no evidence to date that
new gTLD usage is approaching that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence
that this is likely to change.</P>
<P>Well, depending on your definition of the 'legacy', with one major
exception.</P>
<P>Best regards</P>
<P>cw@christopherwilkinson.eu</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>El 14 de julio de 2018 a las 16:08 John Laprise
<jlaprise@gmail.com> escribió:<BR><BR>My two cents:
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The failure if new gTLDs is only a concern to ICANN and at large to
the extent that it negatively impacts the security and stability
(S&S) of the internet. A minority of end users are interested in
acquiring a new gTLD and for them, we want to make the process simple
and straightforward while not endangering S&S. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I've seen no evidence to date that new gTLD usage is approaching
that of legacy gTLDs or ccTLDs nor evidence that this is likely to
change. New gTLDs are the narrow tip of the TLD long tail distribution.
End user trust/habit will likely continue to preference more well
established (older) TLDs rather than new ones. Their likely failure and
aggregation if anything should be anticipated. If anything, ICANN should
have recourse to reclaim new gTLDs that are acquired but lie fallow and
go unused (owner of new gTLD fails to execute their business plan) and
make them available to others. ICANN should discourage new gTLD
squatting. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The failure of new gTLDs for business reasons is frankly not
ICANN's or at large's concern. In this sense ICANN needn't gave rounds
for new gTLDs but rather have an ongoing process that enables new gTLD
granting/creation in an ongoing basis along with evaluation if those
granted to determine their utilization. I'd throw open the doors with
the admonition that new gTLDs aren't guaranteed to
succeed.</DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>At-Large
mailing
list<BR>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<BR>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large<BR><BR>At-Large
Official Site:
http://atlarge.icann.org</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>--
<BR>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>At-Large mailing
list<BR>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<BR>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large<BR><BR>At-Large
Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>