Anne, So you are claiming that there are generic term based gTLDs that are DELEGATED but have not yet launched? Do you have maybe a few examples? When where they delegated? And what do you mean by “have not been launched”? At least nic.gtld will work, right? Wouldn’t that by itself establish a “launch” of sorts? What’s your definition of “launch” in connotation with an open, generic term based gTLD? Thanks, Alexander From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 11:19 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round Thanks Alexander. Facts are friendly. I’ll be interested to see if your conclusions match those of the GDD-approved list. FYI re .home, .corp, and .mail, several applications have not been withdrawn (see below listing for seven such applications). Cherine mentioned in one of the SSAC presentations on the Name Collision Analysis Project Sessions (NCAP) that the Board wants NCAP/SSAC advice on .HOME, CORP, and .MAIL strings (specifically named in the NCAP) as soon as possible. (Your designation of “forever banned” is not my understanding of the current NCAP work on which the Board is waiting or even the current state of Sub Pro WG policy recommendations – which have not been finalized. Jeff and Rubens are currently working with the NCAP Discussion Group to coordinate. ) .HOME, CORP, and .MAIL Applications not Withdrawn as of 27 AUG 2019 .HOME Contention Set – Charleston Road Registry Inc. (Google) and Dot Home LLC are not withdrawn even though “Not Approved”. Several other .HOME applications were withdrawn. See <https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/contentionsetdiagram/42> https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/contentionsetdiagram/42 .CORP Contention Set – Charleston Road Registry Inc. (Google) and DOTCORP Limited applications are not withdrawn. See <https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/contentionsetdiagram/86> https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/contentionsetdiagram/86 .MAIL Contention Set – Charleston Road Registry Inc. (Google), GMO Registry, Inc., and Amazon EU S.a.r.l are not withdrawn. See <https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/contentionsetdiagram/55> https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/contentionsetdiagram/55 Closed Generic Strings Which Converted to Open Status in 2012 but have not yet Launched – Fairness Issue Regarding strings that converted to open generics (rather than “closed” as per their original 2012 applications), I note there are those which were delegated but have not yet launched. I can’t imagine it would be appropriate for ICANN to deny an Opt-in for the owners of unlaunched strings as to permissive Closed Generic policy developed for upcoming rounds. Such a denial could easily result in a Request for Reconsideration, Independent Review Panel complaint, and/or a lawsuit against ICANN. But as Jeff says, this is “out of scope” for our WG and not within the Charter. Thus, I think it would suffice for the WG to alert GNSO Council to this consideration when discussing any recommended new policy on Closed Generics. Some examples of those strings originally proposed as “Closed”, but then amended and delegated as “Open” may be gleaned from the article on the legal aspects of Closed Generics. <http://ejlt.org/article/view/376/494> http://ejlt.org/article/view/376/494 and checking that against registries which have not yet launched. In my view, it would be extremely risky for ICANN to develop a new policy that allows for Closed Generics in 2022 and then deny the application of that policy to applicants from 2012 who have not yet launched their generic domains awarded for a ten year contract in 2013, 2014, or whenever. Again, as to Sub Pro, this is simply a matter of identifying this risk for GNSO Council. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 3:51 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round [EXTERNAL] _____ Anne, The list that we received last time was without comments. So I took the liberty of compiling from the Applicant Status webpage (using the filters) a list of strings that might occur in “staff’s list” – and make remarks! Please: if any entry is incorrect, or entries are missing: correct it. But after I have concluded my little research it seems that the ONLY 3 strings that aren’t either withdrawn, ineligible, denied (e.g. corp, mail, home) are these three: * Hotel (won CPE and is held up by contenders) * Web (VeriSign won the auction for an applicant, and that doesn’t sit well with others: still fighting over the issue!) * Webs (don’t “get it”: web.com won a string similarity objection, but it says in the online tool that it is “in contracting”?) All other strings are either available again (.thai, .ram, .halal, etc; for those who love to burn their fingers: go for it!) or “banned” (.mail, .corp) or in contracting. .hotel is a community application available for community members only. Trust me: they will NOT want to revert to “closed registry”. VeriSign will NOT have shelled out a Gazillion Dollars in order to revert to a “closed string”. So in regard to “pending strings from 2012”: I don’t see that any of the 3 wants to change to a closed string. Unless of course I have missed strings in my research. So my “gut feeling” of “less than 5” wasn’t THAT bad after all: 3 strings that potentially might be still “in the work” by the next round; and only these 3 COULD in theory try to “profit” from the new AGB. Those who are in contracting CAN’T – because the AGB is only finalized in a year – and they are NOW in contracting. Here the research result (please do not rely on it; it was a 5 min research): Availability String Applicant Background Soon delegated MERCK Merck Registry Holdings, Inc. In ICANN auction in October Soon delegated AMAZON Amazon EU S.à r.l. Seemingly won the TLD shortly ago Soon delegated アマゾン Amazon EU S.à r.l. "Amazon" in Japanese. Should in theory be solved then, too! Soon delegated MUSIC DotMusic Limited Contention solved and right now in contracting Soon delegated CPA American Institute of Certified Public Acc. Prevailed and is in Pre-Delegation Testing now Soon delegated SPA Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council LTD In contracting Accountability Mechanism HOTEL HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l Won CPE; held up by contender Accountability Mechanism WEB NU DOT CO LLC Won auction via VeriSign; held up by contender ??? WEBS Vistaprint Limited Web.com applicant objected and won string confusion! Strangely the application status tool says "in contracting" Available again THAI Better Living Management Company Limited Not approved: Available for application! Available again PERSIANGULF Asia Green IT System Ltd. Sti. GAC Warning - not approved: Available for application! Available again HALAL Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. Ltd. Religious term - not approved: Available for application! Available again GCC GCCIX WLL Opposed by Gulf Coop. Council (GCC): Available for application! Available again RAM FCA US LLC. A God in India! Available for application! Banned String CORP Forever Banned; not available for application! Banned String MAIL Forever Banned; not available for application! Banned String HOME Forever Banned; not available for application! Thanks, Alexander From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 00:08 To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round The 2012 list previously provided to us by staff contained far more than 5 strings. I am not sure why I keep having to ask for this list to be recirculated. Steve? Julie? Trang? From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 1:52 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round [EXTERNAL] _____ Hi, seems there are right now less than 5 strings not completed - and presumably these will find completion till the next application round starts. IF there should be still a string undelegated: obviously not available until withdrawn. Otherwise I would expect both application rounds to be SEPARATED completely: No 2012 application can invoke any 2nd round policy elements. They can withdraw and apply again of course. More interesting question: if in a few years the first delegated generic keyword based brand TLDs (.smart!) become ten years old; but aren't used: we need to determine how to release them back into the pool of available strings. Blocking a geo-name or a generic keyword for your "brand" - then not even USING IT: how is THAT serving the Internet User? Maybe AtLarge has an opinion here? .smart uses TWO domains right now. WOW. They needed to block the ENTIRE NAMESPACE; to use TWO domains after +SEVEN years? And two domains in use is actually more than average. Most brands don't have ANY domain in active use. They clocked up the system - asked for priority numbers in the lottery - then never USED their loot? Unused generic term & geo-name based "brand"-gTLDs (Spec 13) should not be eligble for renewal - and need to be made available again. Do we have any policy in this regard? Thanks, Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: 8/26/19 22:49 (GMT+02:00) To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round Hi Jeff – Do we have Susan’s draft language on your first point yet? (You may recall that there were even discussions about PROHIBITING new applications for the same string as some still pending from 2012 –that was not agreed so Susan is working on a statement that 2012 string application processing must be complete before any new application for that string would be considered. HOWEVER – again here is the “rub” – When you say 2012 string applications have to be “completed”, what are you saying about the policy that applies to those? What if the pending strings from 2012 don’t meet current new gTLD policy but they did not violate that policy as of the time of application? We can only skirt this issue for so long. Are 2012 strings going to be allowed to update to current gTLD policy in order to get authorization to proceed or not? Or are you saying GNSO Council will have to launch another PDP for that purpose? From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:43 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Closed Generics and the 2012 Round [EXTERNAL] _____ Anne, Where has it been proposed that applications from 2012 get priority? I am not aware of any recommendation that we have made that gives “priority” to any applicants from 2012. We did recommend that any applications that were still outstanding for a string that is applied from in a subsequent round be completed. With respect to Exclusive Generics, the Board resolution on this matter stated that any applications that wanted to maintain their “exclusive generic” status would be “deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round…” They did not state that any of those applications would get priority. However, there were no applications that were deferred from the last round. If we did allow some form of Exclusive Generic in the next round, then those rules would only apply to new applicants for TLDs. Discussing what happens to TLDs from 2012 that wanted to be Exclusive Generics, but ended up opening their TLDs because of the Board Resolution is not within the topics contained within our Charter. So yes if we wanted to discuss that issue we would need an amendment to our charter to allow us to tackle that subject. The GNSO could then either grant our request or farm that issue out to a separate group. That is within their discretion. This is no different than any other changes we recommend where applicants from the past round would want the same things. For example, if we accept changes to the code of conduct, the COI, reserved names, agreement, etc., the existing registries would not get the benefit of those changes unless the changes go through a PDP that has jurisdiction over those issues. All Applications / TLDs are treated according the to rules for the round in which they applied. This is true regardless of whether they have launched yet or not. I hope this clears things up. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 2:55 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: Closed Generics and the 2012 Round Thanks Jeff. Your reasoning below is not consistent with what has been proposed in relation to giving priority to applications from the 2012 round that have not been withdrawn. (How is it that this “priority” is in scope for our WG but nothing else re 2012 applicants is in scope? AND if I applied for a Closed Generic and didn’t get it in 2012, why should I have to require another PDP authorization from GNSO Council in order to be treated similarly to new applicants and convert to a Closed Generic? (I believe some open registries that won contention sets in 2012 may not have not have actually launched yet. Why would we say that whether or not they can launch as a Closed Generic is up to GNSO Council?) Thank you, Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:27 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round [EXTERNAL] _____ Thanks all. We have already got a number of people signed up for the group. I expect substantive discussions on this topic to start this week. So, it is not too late to join. But remember that if you join, the expectation is that we will attempt to find a compromise solution that we all can live with (if possible). You can view the member list for the small group here: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Members+New+gTLD+%3A+Topic+of+Clos... Please allow a day or two to pass before seeing your name on the list if you just volunteered over the weekend or today. We will not be talking about Closed Generics in our next meeting tomorrow (late tonight for some of us). Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 11:01 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round All, There has been a lot of discussion in the past 24 hours or so on the applicability of our work on the 2012 applications. Some have expressed concerns about the “fairness” of establishing a policy or new procedures for subsequent rounds when Closed Generics were not allowed in 2012. The applicable Board Resolution covering Closed Generics required the 2012 applicants for Closed Generics to do one of three things. Applicants could have withdrawn their applications completely, signed the then-current Registry Agreement which did not allow Closed Generics, or could have deferred their applications for consideration in a subsequent round. As we covered on the call on Thursday, all of the applicants chose either to convert their applications to open TLDs or withdraw their applications completely. There were NO applicants that elected to defer their applications to any future round. Therefore, although in theory we could have had some issues that we needed to address involving applicants in the 2012 round, the reality is that we do not have any such issues. To address the arguments about fairness of any new policy recommendations on applicants from the previous round, all we can say is that we need to focus on what the right policy should be first without the consideration of the fairness or unfairness to previous applicants from having different rules. If we as a group determine that the right policy is something other than what happened in 2012, then it will by up to the GNSO Council to either set up a new group to deal with that issue or to refer the issue to this group at a later date. But for now, as some have stated, that issue is out of scope for our group. The reality is that there are many things that this group is considering which could produce results that may treat new applicants differently than previous round applicants. Some of those changes may be favorable to the new applicants and some less favorable. The same is true with respect to previous applicants. If we did not make any changes to policy or implementation for fear of the impact on previous or new applicants, no changes would ever be made. The point is that we need to decide what is the right thing to do, point out to the GNSO Council the potential impacts, and then leave it to the Council on what the next steps should be. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. _____ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.