Sunrise is a fairly arbitrary and low-quality proxy for "use," and 10 years is a fairly arbitrary yardstick (meterstick?) for when "use" should occur. Using Sunrise in this way would stifle innovation and hamper the development of different uses and models for TLD ownership. By the ten year mark, how much money has a registry owner put into the gTLD, even if it has not been used? What if millions more have been spent on developing an implementation that isn't ready to launch after 10 years, in spite of good intentions (as Rubens indicates, all sorts of externalities can get in the way of even a fairly straightforward business model)? We would consider just taking all that away, based on an arbitrary marker at an arbitrary time? That's a great way to scare businesses and organizations (and geographic entities) away from this space. It's also a great way to inspire more litigation and dispute resolution, RfR, and IRP practice (lucrative though that might be for some -- none of whom seem to be supporting this anyway). A draconian "use it or lose it" model might make sense in spectrum (they're not making any more of it), but this is not that. It's the wrong milestone with the wrong measure for a problem we have not defined, and can't even agree exists. It might be interesting to discuss a ban on holding TLDs solely for the purpose of resale, and to consider how to enforce that. At least it's a narrower (though perhaps still hypothetical) problem. While we're at it, we could consider having the same sort of ban at the second level, but that's a different discussion (and probably one for a different Working Group).... To clarify (if needed), count me in the "not in favor of the proposal" column. Thanks! Greg On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:11 PM Austin, Donna via Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Neustar is in the ‘not in favor of the proposal’ camp.

*Donna Austin* *Neustar, Inc.* / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions *Mobile:* +1 310 890 9655 *donna.austin@team.neustar <donna.austin@team.neustar>* / *Website:* home.neustar <http://www.home.neustar/>

*Follow Neustar:* LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> */* Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ------------------------------

The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2019 7:31 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary

All,

This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are:

*Proposal:*

Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement.

*What is the problem we are trying to Solve?*

- From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” - From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” - From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. - Supported by Jorge

*From those not in favor of the Proposal*

- Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” - Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical - Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch - Supported by Martin - Rubens: The fact that ICANN changed a number of things made it more difficult to launch the TLD in Latin America; this will discriminate against the Global South

We need to hear from the rest of the group as to what their thoughts are. Also, if there is a real issue, we need to have evidence to show the problem. Otherwise we are developing a solution to something that many do not agree is a problem? What is the harm caused by not having this rule in place?

Thanks.

*Jeff Neuman*

Senior Vice President

*Com Laude | Valideus*

D: +1.703.635.7514

E: *jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>*

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 4:47 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

Correct. Apple has no inherent right for .Apple. That’s why they had to apply for it along with anyone else who wanted it. And if someone else was willing to pay more in a public or private auction that other company would be the RO for .apple and Apple could apply for something else in the next or subsequent rounds. Of course Apple has a right to stop infringing and abusive uses of .Apple but that is a different question.

*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020

Mobile 773.677.3305

trac@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gtlaw.com_&d=DwMGaQ&...>

[image: Greenberg Traurig]

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 2:53 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

Marc,

So APPLE has no inherent right or need for .apple? Is it that what you are saying? They could apply for .appleinc for example, right?

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>] *Sent:* Freitag, 22. November 2019 15:10 *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

He should be able to wait as long as he wants or needs to. What is the worst case scenario – there are only 999,998 TLDs instead of 1,000,000? Again, there is no inherent right (or need) to have every possible combination of letters and numbers be a TLD and be able to register domains in it.

*Marc H. Trachtenberg* Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020

Mobile 773.677.3305

trac@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gtlaw.com_&d=DwMGaQ&...>

[image: Greenberg Traurig]

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Alexander Schubert *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 1:55 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

**EXTERNAL TO GT**

Hi Rubens,

I understand you. But how long more do you want to wait? 10 years? 25 years? If you can’t launch the string: someone else might be able. Create a white label registrar for example. There are many countries that do NOT have ICANN registrars. Latvia for example. Does that mean there should never be a .riga?

Thanks,

Alexander

*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Freitag, 22. November 2019 12:26 *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

Alexander,

I happen to be from an organisation that applied to 2 gTLDs in 2012 and still have launched them. What I need to point out is that bring this requirement on registries would also need requirements on ICANN.

At the time we applied, it was said that vertical integration would not require two different legal entities; this was added in an AGB version after applications have been submitted.

At the time we applied, there was no indication that then current registrars with RAA 2009 wouldn't be able to sell 2012 gTLDs; when the RA was finalised, this suddenly appeared. And since we had only 2009 Registrars in our country, that meant no registrars.

But as RAAs start expiring, we were hopeful that some registrars would become RAA 2013... what happened though is that all Brazilian registrars preferred dropping their accreditations instead of on boarding new, cumbersome requirements that were added to RAA mostly due to pressures from developed countries.

So, ICANN Org failed us miserably in a lot of ways, and you are suggesting that even in that condition we would be obliged to launch expeditiously ?

No, thanks. And if your intention is to widen the gap from "Global North" to "Global South", that's a sure way to do it. There is more to the world than Western Europe and North America.

Rubens

Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> escreveu:

Dear Jeff,

As discussed on the call yesterday here a brief suggestion regarding a “use requirement”. First a summary of my suggestion:

*The new RA (Registry Agreement) should contain a clause that denies contract renewal if registries have not had a Sunrise registration phase (Spec-13 Brand Registries would be exempted from this clause).*

Here my rationale for this:

Obviously the 2007 PDP demanded a use requirement. Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract).

Let’s be cognizant of the 3 gTLD categories that emerged in 2012:

1. Spec 13 gTLDs (Brands)

2. Geo gTLDs (mainly cities)

3. All others

We can’t always find “one size fits all” solutions – and claim that in absence of a global solution we will not create ANY solution at all. That said: I can’t speak for the category 1. And as Martin Sutton said on the Monday GNSO call: if “use” was defined by “number of domains”: nothing more easy than registering a number of domains. So yes: for brand gTLDs it’s nifty to “define” a “use requirement” – maybe someone else can come up with a solution for Spec-13 registries.

BUT: For categories 2 and 3 I think the solution is simple! We already steeply penalize if the prospective registry doesn’t contract or engage in testing. There are grace periods to do so (I think 9 month). We could use the same grace period for “startup” – which is opening the string up for registrations in Sunrise!

At BARE minimum we should put into the new RA (Registry Agreement) that failure for categories 2 and 3 (non-Spec-13 registries) to startup (start sunrise) WILL be a reason to deny contract renewal! A DECADE of not starting up should be a clear sign of failure.

This solution is NOT impacting Spec 13 applicants. We can discuss separately whether or not we wish to add a “use requirement” for them as well. This solution would also NOT impact 2012 round new gTLDs.

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

------------------------------

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information. ------------------------------

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com&d=DwMGaQ&c...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Christopher, Can you please clarify your comment below as I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you arguing that we should not try to enable innovation at the gTLD level and that innovation can only occur at the second (or third) level? With respect to cybersquatting, that occurs when someone registers a domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from another’s trademark. As so many of you have pointed out, no one has any rights to a generic or nonsense term that is not used as an indicator of source (i.e., a trademark). So what cybersquatting are you referring to? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:14 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, I do not accept the ’innovation' argument at the gTLD level. The main argument for innovation and intelligence on the Internet has been that it takes place at the periphery. Indeed it does. In this context that means innovation by the Registrant. As I have said before, the economic rent of a good name should accrue to the Registrant (which is also why I oppose premium pricing.) The principal issue here is not innovation, It is speculation. From cybersquatting the dictionary at the second level, we would be moving towards legitimatising cybersquatting the Gazetteers at the top level. No. CW On 25 Nov 2019, at 16:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve? * From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” * From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” * From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. * Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the Proposal * Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” * Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical * Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch * Supported by Martin * Rubens: The fact that ICANN changed a number of things made it more difficult to launch the TLD in Latin America; this will discriminate against the Global South We need to hear from the rest of the group as to what their thoughts are. Also, if there is a real issue, we need to have evidence to show the problem. Otherwise we are developing a solution to something that many do not agree is a problem? What is the harm caused by not having this rule in place? Thanks. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 4:47 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Correct. Apple has no inherent right for .Apple. That’s why they had to apply for it along with anyone else who wanted it. And if someone else was willing to pay more in a public or private auction that other company would be the RO for .apple and Apple could apply for something else in the next or subsequent rounds. Of course Apple has a right to stop infringing and abusive uses of .Apple but that is a different question. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:53 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Marc, So APPLE has no inherent right or need for .apple? Is it that what you are saying? They could apply for .appleinc for example, right? Thanks, Alexander From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 15:10 To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs He should be able to wait as long as he wants or needs to. What is the worst case scenario – there are only 999,998 TLDs instead of 1,000,000? Again, there is no inherent right (or need) to have every possible combination of letters and numbers be a TLD and be able to register domains in it. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:55 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs *EXTERNAL TO GT* Hi Rubens, I understand you. But how long more do you want to wait? 10 years? 25 years? If you can’t launch the string: someone else might be able. Create a white label registrar for example. There are many countries that do NOT have ICANN registrars. Latvia for example. Does that mean there should never be a .riga? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 12:26 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Alexander, I happen to be from an organisation that applied to 2 gTLDs in 2012 and still have launched them. What I need to point out is that bring this requirement on registries would also need requirements on ICANN. At the time we applied, it was said that vertical integration would not require two different legal entities; this was added in an AGB version after applications have been submitted. At the time we applied, there was no indication that then current registrars with RAA 2009 wouldn't be able to sell 2012 gTLDs; when the RA was finalised, this suddenly appeared. And since we had only 2009 Registrars in our country, that meant no registrars. But as RAAs start expiring, we were hopeful that some registrars would become RAA 2013... what happened though is that all Brazilian registrars preferred dropping their accreditations instead of on boarding new, cumbersome requirements that were added to RAA mostly due to pressures from developed countries. So, ICANN Org failed us miserably in a lot of ways, and you are suggesting that even in that condition we would be obliged to launch expeditiously ? No, thanks. And if your intention is to widen the gap from "Global North" to "Global South", that's a sure way to do it. There is more to the world than Western Europe and North America. Rubens Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> escreveu: Dear Jeff, As discussed on the call yesterday here a brief suggestion regarding a “use requirement”. First a summary of my suggestion: The new RA (Registry Agreement) should contain a clause that denies contract renewal if registries have not had a Sunrise registration phase (Spec-13 Brand Registries would be exempted from this clause). Here my rationale for this: Obviously the 2007 PDP demanded a use requirement. Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract). Let’s be cognizant of the 3 gTLD categories that emerged in 2012: 1. Spec 13 gTLDs (Brands) 2. Geo gTLDs (mainly cities) 3. All others We can’t always find “one size fits all” solutions – and claim that in absence of a global solution we will not create ANY solution at all. That said: I can’t speak for the category 1. And as Martin Sutton said on the Monday GNSO call: if “use” was defined by “number of domains”: nothing more easy than registering a number of domains. So yes: for brand gTLDs it’s nifty to “define” a “use requirement” – maybe someone else can come up with a solution for Spec-13 registries. BUT: For categories 2 and 3 I think the solution is simple! We already steeply penalize if the prospective registry doesn’t contract or engage in testing. There are grace periods to do so (I think 9 month). We could use the same grace period for “startup” – which is opening the string up for registrations in Sunrise! At BARE minimum we should put into the new RA (Registry Agreement) that failure for categories 2 and 3 (non-Spec-13 registries) to startup (start sunrise) WILL be a reason to deny contract renewal! A DECADE of not starting up should be a clear sign of failure. This solution is NOT impacting Spec 13 applicants. We can discuss separately whether or not we wish to add a “use requirement” for them as well. This solution would also NOT impact 2012 round new gTLDs. Thanks, Alexander.berlin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com_&d=DwMFaQ&...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Chris, Where outside the US does cybersquatting refer to anything other the trademarks? The fact that YOU may regard any accumulation by a Registry of whatever strings for speculative purposes as cybersquatting is great but I am not sure that anyone else does. But so I understand you, the accumulation of domains at the second level for speculative purposes is fine – just not at the top level? What is the distinction – there is only one of each? Finally, you may consider that a gTLD registry is providing a public service to Registrars and Registrants but that does not make it so. In fact it is clearly not so – gTLD registry operators are private entities that in many cases are driven by profit but may also be driven by other motivations. This is most evident with .brands but also evident in virtually all other gTLDs. Similarly, registrars are not providing a public service to registrants – they are private companies driven by profit and other considerations. gTLDs are not natural resources and your view of the DNS does not align with reality. Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10:06 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary Marc Trachtenberg: Limiting cybersquatting to trademarks is a peculiarly US consideration. I regard ANY accumulation by a Registry of whatever strings for speculative purposes as cybersquatting - or if you prefer it - by any other name. Regarding innovation, I consider that a gTLD Registry is providing a public service to Registrars and Registrants. CW On 26 Nov 2019, at 16:55, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: Christopher, Can you please clarify your comment below as I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you arguing that we should not try to enable innovation at the gTLD level and that innovation can only occur at the second (or third) level? With respect to cybersquatting, that occurs when someone registers a domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from another’s trademark. As so many of you have pointed out, no one has any rights to a generic or nonsense term that is not used as an indicator of source (i.e., a trademark). So what cybersquatting are you referring to? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:14 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, I do not accept the ’innovation' argument at the gTLD level. The main argument for innovation and intelligence on the Internet has been that it takes place at the periphery. Indeed it does. In this context that means innovation by the Registrant. As I have said before, the economic rent of a good name should accrue to the Registrant (which is also why I oppose premium pricing.) The principal issue here is not innovation, It is speculation. From cybersquatting the dictionary at the second level, we would be moving towards legitimatising cybersquatting the Gazetteers at the top level. No. CW On 25 Nov 2019, at 16:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve? * From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” * From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” * From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. * Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the Proposal * Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” * Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical * Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch * Supported by Martin * Rubens: The fact that ICANN changed a number of things made it more difficult to launch the TLD in Latin America; this will discriminate against the Global South We need to hear from the rest of the group as to what their thoughts are. Also, if there is a real issue, we need to have evidence to show the problem. Otherwise we are developing a solution to something that many do not agree is a problem? What is the harm caused by not having this rule in place? Thanks. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 4:47 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Correct. Apple has no inherent right for .Apple. That’s why they had to apply for it along with anyone else who wanted it. And if someone else was willing to pay more in a public or private auction that other company would be the RO for .apple and Apple could apply for something else in the next or subsequent rounds. Of course Apple has a right to stop infringing and abusive uses of .Apple but that is a different question. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:53 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Marc, So APPLE has no inherent right or need for .apple? Is it that what you are saying? They could apply for .appleinc for example, right? Thanks, Alexander From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com] Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 15:10 To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs He should be able to wait as long as he wants or needs to. What is the worst case scenario – there are only 999,998 TLDs instead of 1,000,000? Again, there is no inherent right (or need) to have every possible combination of letters and numbers be a TLD and be able to register domains in it. Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:55 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs *EXTERNAL TO GT* Hi Rubens, I understand you. But how long more do you want to wait? 10 years? 25 years? If you can’t launch the string: someone else might be able. Create a white label registrar for example. There are many countries that do NOT have ICANN registrars. Latvia for example. Does that mean there should never be a .riga? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 12:26 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Alexander, I happen to be from an organisation that applied to 2 gTLDs in 2012 and still have launched them. What I need to point out is that bring this requirement on registries would also need requirements on ICANN. At the time we applied, it was said that vertical integration would not require two different legal entities; this was added in an AGB version after applications have been submitted. At the time we applied, there was no indication that then current registrars with RAA 2009 wouldn't be able to sell 2012 gTLDs; when the RA was finalised, this suddenly appeared. And since we had only 2009 Registrars in our country, that meant no registrars. But as RAAs start expiring, we were hopeful that some registrars would become RAA 2013... what happened though is that all Brazilian registrars preferred dropping their accreditations instead of on boarding new, cumbersome requirements that were added to RAA mostly due to pressures from developed countries. So, ICANN Org failed us miserably in a lot of ways, and you are suggesting that even in that condition we would be obliged to launch expeditiously ? No, thanks. And if your intention is to widen the gap from "Global North" to "Global South", that's a sure way to do it. There is more to the world than Western Europe and North America. Rubens Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> escreveu: Dear Jeff, As discussed on the call yesterday here a brief suggestion regarding a “use requirement”. First a summary of my suggestion: The new RA (Registry Agreement) should contain a clause that denies contract renewal if registries have not had a Sunrise registration phase (Spec-13 Brand Registries would be exempted from this clause). Here my rationale for this: Obviously the 2007 PDP demanded a use requirement. Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract). Let’s be cognizant of the 3 gTLD categories that emerged in 2012: 1. Spec 13 gTLDs (Brands) 2. Geo gTLDs (mainly cities) 3. All others We can’t always find “one size fits all” solutions – and claim that in absence of a global solution we will not create ANY solution at all. That said: I can’t speak for the category 1. And as Martin Sutton said on the Monday GNSO call: if “use” was defined by “number of domains”: nothing more easy than registering a number of domains. So yes: for brand gTLDs it’s nifty to “define” a “use requirement” – maybe someone else can come up with a solution for Spec-13 registries. BUT: For categories 2 and 3 I think the solution is simple! We already steeply penalize if the prospective registry doesn’t contract or engage in testing. There are grace periods to do so (I think 9 month). We could use the same grace period for “startup” – which is opening the string up for registrations in Sunrise! At BARE minimum we should put into the new RA (Registry Agreement) that failure for categories 2 and 3 (non-Spec-13 registries) to startup (start sunrise) WILL be a reason to deny contract renewal! A DECADE of not starting up should be a clear sign of failure. This solution is NOT impacting Spec 13 applicants. We can discuss separately whether or not we wish to add a “use requirement” for them as well. This solution would also NOT impact 2012 round new gTLDs. Thanks, Alexander.berlin _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com_&d=DwMFaQ&...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

I am on the EURALO AGM conference call. I shall revert tp these matters in due course. CW

On 26 Nov 2019, at 17:24, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:

Cristopher,

TLDs are providing services not only to Registrars, but to public (via DNS, RDAP/WHOIS), there are almost no services outside for communities/highly regulated strings directed to the Registrants.

There was no way to distinguish those who just could not launch due to unpredicted behaviour of ICANN in the last round and those who got TLD contracts with the sole idea of selling the contract later.

By the time of the Delegation Trademark owners had a lot of chances to have a say about any application, before it left stage of Application and became a Registry Agreements, so saying that there is another bite in the apple after all those time and money and efforts invested in the Application is bit too much.

For example GEOs have to talk about ANY changes to the launchplans to Mayor's offices (or Federal entities, where it was applicable) and those have annual cycles of planning, so after EACH timeline slip done due to glitches, archeries or additional bright requirements, like changes to RA, there was a need to reschedule and to have additional conversations and potentially it led to huge losses of time (not equal to the changes caused by ICANN)).

P.s: we do not have a definition of cybersquatting (which might be not relevant to Application , where, without a degree of rights for the name or lack of objections nobody could have a TLD, and without possibility to have the same TLD outside of the round, for many years) or warehousing (this one is non relevant in situation where everyone had a chance to participate or object) for TLD level, so this conversation is bit pointless.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

...

On 26 Nov 2019, at 19:06, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Marc Trachtenberg:

Limiting cybersquatting to trademarks is a peculiarly US consideration.

I regard ANY accumulation by a Registry of whatever strings for speculative purposes as cybersquatting - or if you prefer it - by any other name.

Regarding innovation, I consider that a gTLD Registry is providing a public service to Registrars and Registrants.

CW

...

On 26 Nov 2019, at 16:55, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote:

Christopher,

Can you please clarify your comment below as I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you arguing that we should not try to enable innovation at the gTLD level and that innovation can only occur at the second (or third) level?

With respect to cybersquatting, that occurs when someone registers a domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from another’s trademark. As so many of you have pointed out, no one has any rights to a generic or nonsense term that is not used as an indicator of source (i.e., a trademark). So what cybersquatting are you referring to?

Best regards,

Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>

<image001.jpg>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu <mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:14 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary

All,

I do not accept the ’innovation' argument at the gTLD level. The main argument for innovation and intelligence on the Internet has been that it takes place at the periphery. Indeed it does. In this context that means innovation by the Registrant. As I have said before, the economic rent of a good name should accrue to the Registrant (which is also why I oppose premium pricing.)

The principal issue here is not innovation, It is speculation. From cybersquatting the dictionary at the second level, we would be moving towards legitimatising cybersquatting the Gazetteers at the top level. No.

CW

On 25 Nov 2019, at 16:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:

All,

This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are:

Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement.

What is the problem we are trying to Solve? From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. Supported by Jorge

From those not in favor of the Proposal Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.” Marc: What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical Maxim: What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch Supported by Martin Rubens: The fact that ICANN changed a number of things made it more difficult to launch the TLD in Latin America; this will discriminate against the Global South

We need to hear from the rest of the group as to what their thoughts are. Also, if there is a real issue, we need to have evidence to show the problem. Otherwise we are developing a solution to something that many do not agree is a problem? What is the harm caused by not having this rule in place?

Thanks.

Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus D: +1.703.635.7514 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 4:47 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

Correct. Apple has no inherent right for .Apple. That’s why they had to apply for it along with anyone else who wanted it. And if someone else was willing to pay more in a public or private auction that other company would be the RO for .apple and Apple could apply for something else in the next or subsequent rounds. Of course Apple has a right to stop infringing and abusive uses of .Apple but that is a different question.

Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>

<image001.jpg>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 2:53 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

Marc,

So APPLE has no inherent right or need for .apple? Is it that what you are saying? They could apply for .appleinc for example, right?

Thanks,

Alexander

From: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> [mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com <mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>] Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 15:10 To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

He should be able to wait as long as he wants or needs to. What is the worst case scenario – there are only 999,998 TLDs instead of 1,000,000? Again, there is no inherent right (or need) to have every possible combination of letters and numbers be a TLD and be able to register domains in it.

Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com <http://www.gtlaw.com/>

<image001.jpg>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:55 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

*EXTERNAL TO GT*

Hi Rubens,

I understand you. But how long more do you want to wait? 10 years? 25 years? If you can’t launch the string: someone else might be able. Create a white label registrar for example. There are many countries that do NOT have ICANN registrars. Latvia for example. Does that mean there should never be a .riga?

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 12:26 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

Alexander,

I happen to be from an organisation that applied to 2 gTLDs in 2012 and still have launched them. What I need to point out is that bring this requirement on registries would also need requirements on ICANN.

At the time we applied, it was said that vertical integration would not require two different legal entities; this was added in an AGB version after applications have been submitted.

At the time we applied, there was no indication that then current registrars with RAA 2009 wouldn't be able to sell 2012 gTLDs; when the RA was finalised, this suddenly appeared. And since we had only 2009 Registrars in our country, that meant no registrars.

But as RAAs start expiring, we were hopeful that some registrars would become RAA 2013... what happened though is that all Brazilian registrars preferred dropping their accreditations instead of on boarding new, cumbersome requirements that were added to RAA mostly due to pressures from developed countries.

So, ICANN Org failed us miserably in a lot of ways, and you are suggesting that even in that condition we would be obliged to launch expeditiously ?

No, thanks. And if your intention is to widen the gap from "Global North" to "Global South", that's a sure way to do it. There is more to the world than Western Europe and North America.

Rubens

Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> escreveu:

Dear Jeff,

As discussed on the call yesterday here a brief suggestion regarding a “use requirement”. First a summary of my suggestion:

The new RA (Registry Agreement) should contain a clause that denies contract renewal if registries have not had a Sunrise registration phase (Spec-13 Brand Registries would be exempted from this clause).

Here my rationale for this:

Obviously the 2007 PDP demanded a use requirement. Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract).

Let’s be cognizant of the 3 gTLD categories that emerged in 2012: 1. Spec 13 gTLDs (Brands) 2. Geo gTLDs (mainly cities) 3. All others

We can’t always find “one size fits all” solutions – and claim that in absence of a global solution we will not create ANY solution at all. That said: I can’t speak for the category 1. And as Martin Sutton said on the Monday GNSO call: if “use” was defined by “number of domains”: nothing more easy than registering a number of domains. So yes: for brand gTLDs it’s nifty to “define” a “use requirement” – maybe someone else can come up with a solution for Spec-13 registries.

BUT: For categories 2 and 3 I think the solution is simple! We already steeply penalize if the prospective registry doesn’t contract or engage in testing. There are grace periods to do so (I think 9 month). We could use the same grace period for “startup” – which is opening the string up for registrations in Sunrise!

At BARE minimum we should put into the new RA (Registry Agreement) that failure for categories 2 and 3 (non-Spec-13 registries) to startup (start sunrise) WILL be a reason to deny contract renewal! A DECADE of not starting up should be a clear sign of failure.

This solution is NOT impacting Spec 13 applicants. We can discuss separately whether or not we wish to add a “use requirement” for them as well. This solution would also NOT impact 2012 round new gTLDs.

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate the information. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__comlaude.com_&d=DwMFaQ&...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.