[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Wed Sep 23 16:16:15 UTC 2015


There has been *some* discussion about future rounds. We are well represented in the WG that drafted this report.

Speaking personally - I’ve no issue with another round, but I’d love to see a LOT of things on the operational side being handled more consistently and smoothly. Contracting with hundreds of registries is painful. Fortunately some of them finally adopted e-contracts etc., which made some of the work that bit easier, but others insisted on hard copies of everything being completed and signed in triplicate etc.,

I’d love to see people taking the 1st round, looking at what was done well and what was a mess and improving on it all before launching into a new round. 

My own company has onboarded and integrated with a LOT of new TLDs, but we haven’t been able to integrate with as many as we had hoped to handle or the ones we’d hoped to be able to do. 



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Social: http://mneylon.social
Random Stuff: http://www.michele.irish/
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 23/09/2015 17:07, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

>Dear Michele,
>On 23/09/2015 15:36, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
>> Speaking in my purely personal capacity … 
>> Just to clarify - not ALL contracted parties are going to be pushing as hard for a next round as others .. 
>> I’m not saying that we are opposed to a new round - a lot of registrars obviously aren’t - but not all of us are going to be as motivated for a new round as others
>> I’m on the record as saying that quite a few things from the current round need to be reviewed.
>Thanks for your follow-up. I am sure that not all contracted parties
>might wish another round. In fact, there are surely some Registries that
>are starting business from the current round and are no looking forward
>to having another round tailing behind them. Ditto for Registrars that
>have to sign more and more agreements with more Registries. But what I
>have noticed so far on the GNSO council is that the representatives from
>Contracted Parties have a unified concern that the process might be
>delayed - thus reticence to having an initial extended commenting
>period, concerns that the PDP might take several years. Eagerness to
>start now.
>Has a frank discussion taken place in Contracted parties House?
>Kindest regards,

More information about the At-Large mailing list