Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
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 Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract).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
Good evening: I support the general direction of Alexander’s proposal: to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. However, ten years is far too long for these purposes. The proposal does not address the specific risk of geo-names Registries (a) accumulating geo-names for speculative purposes and (b) incorporating the Registries outside the jurisdiction of the countries concerned. These conditions are open to unacceptable abuses, and long running disputes in the future. CW
On 20 Nov 2019, at 17:49, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
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://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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
Thanks Christopher, This proposed measure is just a “last resort safety measure” – and one that is super easy to incorporate into the RA (Registry Agreement): If you haven’t had a sunrise – there is no expectation of a contact renewal. It’s that short: * “Finalization of the Sunrise phase (if applicable) is requisite for contract renewal”. The “if applicable” excludes Spec 13 registries. It’s 12 simple words. If you did not manage to enter Sunrise in a DECADE; then you aren’t a registry operator; you are a failure. And I fail to understand why ICANN should continue to entrust you with a vital, impacting piece of DNS infrastructure – if you fail to serve the community. Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu [mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu] Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 13:05 To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Good evening: I support the general direction of Alexander’s proposal: to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. However, ten years is far too long for these purposes. The proposal does not address the specific risk of geo-names Registries (a) accumulating geo-names for speculative purposes and (b) incorporating the Registries outside the jurisdiction of the countries concerned. These conditions are open to unacceptable abuses, and long running disputes in the future. CW On 20 Nov 2019, at 17:49, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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.
Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ 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.
+1 Jorge ________________________________ Von: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Datum: 21. November 2019 um 19:43:49 MEZ An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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.
Kathy, I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation? Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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. 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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs *EXTERNAL TO GT* Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Marc, Domain names are only available for commercial use since 25 years now. In that respect 10 years is an INSANE long period. Add about 1 year after application plus 1,5 years that you have for contracting and testing: we are talking 12.5 years after you requested at ICANN to operate a new gTLD: that’s HALF of the entire time in history that domains were commercially available. If you can’t startup in that time you should not attempt to run a DNS resource. Regarding “new business models”: My policy wording says: “Finalization of the Sunrise phase (if applicable) is requisite for contract renewal”. So the examples that you mentioned would all be fine and had no problems. If you do NOT have a sunrise period you will obviously have to state that in your application. If ICANN approves: all is fine. Regarding the notion that “no problem exists”: As we speak consultants are romping around trying to “sell” big corporations generic keyword based gTLDs: to “safeguard” “their” verticals. You can buy the service of application submission, contracting and testing for just $ 50k (combined), plus application fees (probably $ 50k) and that’s it. All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does”. Is everybody here “OK” that entities can shot down entire verticals to stifle competition? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 14:29 To: kathy@kathykleiman.com; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Kathy, I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation? Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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. 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 <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 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* Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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.
Alex, What evidence do you have that consultants are romping around trying to “sell” big corporations generic keyword based gTLDs: to “safeguard” “their” verticals other than just saying it? Also, someone getting delegated a TLD that is a generic word who doesn’t use it is not tying up a vertical, whatever that means. There are many other options for people to get domain names in that “vertical” by being creative in second level choices in other TLDs, legacy or new. Again, there is no inherent right for people to be able to get whatever domain name they want in any possible TLD. 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 Alexander Schubert Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:33 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Marc, Domain names are only available for commercial use since 25 years now. In that respect 10 years is an INSANE long period. Add about 1 year after application plus 1,5 years that you have for contracting and testing: we are talking 12.5 years after you requested at ICANN to operate a new gTLD: that’s HALF of the entire time in history that domains were commercially available. If you can’t startup in that time you should not attempt to run a DNS resource. Regarding “new business models”: My policy wording says: “Finalization of the Sunrise phase (if applicable) is requisite for contract renewal”. So the examples that you mentioned would all be fine and had no problems. If you do NOT have a sunrise period you will obviously have to state that in your application. If ICANN approves: all is fine. Regarding the notion that “no problem exists”: As we speak . You can buy the service of application submission, contracting and testing for just $ 50k (combined), plus application fees (probably $ 50k) and that’s it. All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does”. Is everybody here “OK” that entities can shot down entire verticals to stifle competition? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 14:29 To: kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Kathy, I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation? Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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. 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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 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* Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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.
Alex, What is the problem we are trying to solve? Currently, a Registry is obliged to execute an RA, and after that - there are no restrictions on when sunrise is going to happen (I remind you, that last time due to numerous breaches of timeline from ICANN's side lots of TLDs were not able to have a sunrise, and it was not their fault, so I do not think that trashing all similar contracts in the similar circumstances is in a public interest). Before adding more obligations to Registries, we need to understand cases, where good actors will be formally falling in the bad baskets, because, ICANN Compliance is guided by the ICANN's reading of the letter of the contract, and they can not be guided by 'all the good intentions discussed during the PDP life'. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 22 Nov 2019, at 01:47, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Alex, <>
What evidence do you have that consultants are romping around trying to “sell” big corporations generic keyword based gTLDs: to “safeguard” “their” verticals other than just saying it?
Also, someone getting delegated a TLD that is a generic word who doesn’t use it is not tying up a vertical, whatever that means. There are many other options for people to get domain names in that “vertical” by being creative in second level choices in other TLDs, legacy or new. Again, there is no inherent right for people to be able to get whatever domain name they want in any possible TLD.
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/>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:33 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
Marc,
Domain names are only available for commercial use since 25 years now. In that respect 10 years is an INSANE long period. Add about 1 year after application plus 1,5 years that you have for contracting and testing: we are talking 12.5 years after you requested at ICANN to operate a new gTLD: that’s HALF of the entire time in history that domains were commercially available. If you can’t startup in that time you should not attempt to run a DNS resource.
Regarding “new business models”:
My policy wording says: “Finalization of the Sunrise phase (if applicable) is requisite for contract renewal”. So the examples that you mentioned would all be fine and had no problems. If you do NOT have a sunrise period you will obviously have to state that in your application. If ICANN approves: all is fine.
Regarding the notion that “no problem exists”: As we speak . You can buy the service of application submission, contracting and testing for just $ 50k (combined), plus application fees (probably $ 50k) and that’s it. All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does”.
Is everybody here “OK” that entities can shot down entire verticals to stifle competition?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 14:29 To: kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
Kathy,
I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation?
Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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.
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/>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 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*
Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.
I support.
Best, Kathy
On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
I agree with your points Maxim, as similarly raised on a previous call with the group. Martin Martin Sutton martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Brand Registry Group The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. On 22 Nov 2019, at 12:46, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote: Alex, What is the problem we are trying to solve? Currently, a Registry is obliged to execute an RA, and after that - there are no restrictions on when sunrise is going to happen (I remind you, that last time due to numerous breaches of timeline from ICANN's side lots of TLDs were not able to have a sunrise, and it was not their fault, so I do not think that trashing all similar contracts in the similar circumstances is in a public interest). Before adding more obligations to Registries, we need to understand cases, where good actors will be formally falling in the bad baskets, because, ICANN Compliance is guided by the ICANN's reading of the letter of the contract, and they can not be guided by 'all the good intentions discussed during the PDP life'. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 22 Nov 2019, at 01:47, Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Alex, What evidence do you have that consultants are romping around trying to “sell” big corporations generic keyword based gTLDs: to “safeguard” “their” verticals other than just saying it? Also, someone getting delegated a TLD that is a generic word who doesn’t use it is not tying up a vertical, whatever that means. There are many other options for people to get domain names in that “vertical” by being creative in second level choices in other TLDs, legacy or new. Again, there is no inherent right for people to be able to get whatever domain name they want in any possible TLD. 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 Alexander Schubert Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 4:33 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, Domain names are only available for commercial use since 25 years now. In that respect 10 years is an INSANE long period. Add about 1 year after application plus 1,5 years that you have for contracting and testing: we are talking 12.5 years after you requested at ICANN to operate a new gTLD: that’s HALF of the entire time in history that domains were commercially available. If you can’t startup in that time you should not attempt to run a DNS resource. Regarding “new business models”: My policy wording says: “Finalization of the Sunrise phase (if applicable) is requisite for contract renewal”. So the examples that you mentioned would all be fine and had no problems. If you do NOT have a sunrise period you will obviously have to state that in your application. If ICANN approves: all is fine. Regarding the notion that “no problem exists”: As we speak . You can buy the service of application submission, contracting and testing for just $ 50k (combined), plus application fees (probably $ 50k) and that’s it. All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does”. Is everybody here “OK” that entities can shot down entire verticals to stifle competition? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 14:29 To: kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Kathy, I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation? Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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. 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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 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* Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=uV1pyX-mNVD9P4TlLUWeknvls7QOv0a4lnbrjLruCZg&s=EVH2cDAg5pRW-i9jlVTCBo4AJqjNzKMlBxOYXY18B3s&e=> _______________________________________________ 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_policy&d=DwMDaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=uV1pyX-mNVD9P4TlLUWeknvls7QOv0a4lnbrjLruCZg&s=JxweizR3VC-nDXRMCt3dyCD1otZ5qOKyB-8v4G7dKCo&e=>) 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_tos&d=DwMDaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=uV1pyX-mNVD9P4TlLUWeknvls7QOv0a4lnbrjLruCZg&s=k8UfJ6pXDHZ2XcYf_zkvOlGPGCsU42OXE_xY0avPxho&e=>). 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Marc, If you are going to quote me, I would ask that you please do it accurately. As regards your point below, it sounds like the gTLD operator IS using the gTLD space, as another commenter pointed out. Kathy On 11/21/2019 2:28 PM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com wrote:
Kathy,
I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation?
Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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.
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 *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 PM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
**EXTERNAL TO GT**
Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.
I support.
Best, Kathy
On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:
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, and do not use or disseminate the information.
Kathy, What did I misquote? You said: “Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible” I said: “I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible” Do you object to my use of “or” instead of “and”? 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: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 11:06 AM To: Trachtenberg, Marc H. (Shld-Chi-IP-Tech) <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Hi Marc, If you are going to quote me, I would ask that you please do it accurately. As regards your point below, it sounds like the gTLD operator IS using the gTLD space, as another commenter pointed out. Kathy On 11/21/2019 2:28 PM, trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote: Kathy, I don’t think that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion. First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation? Second, what does “use” mean? What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties? That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space. While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names. 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. 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 Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 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* Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it. That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions. I support. Best, Kathy On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote: 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.
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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
This is Exhibit A of why everything needs to be locked down and finalized BEFORE the application window opens. We cannot have rules changing after applications have been submitted and ICANN has accepted application fees. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:26 PM 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<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 _______________________________________________ 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.
Jim, That is laughable. We spent six years developing the last guidebook. Only to see ICANN change the rules in myriad ways after application fees were accepted. None of us should have any illusions that they will not do that again, upon whim of any government objector or Verisign. Unless we take away the Board's discretion to do whatever they want whenever they want upon any whim they like. I would be completely in favor of doing that, but we all know it is impossible. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:27 PM Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:
This is Exhibit A of why everything needs to be locked down and finalized BEFORE the application window opens. We cannot have rules changing after applications have been submitted and ICANN has accepted application fees.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 12:26 PM *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 _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
But we didn’t have the benefit of the 2012 round like we do this go around. We’re not making the up from scratch. From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 1:35 PM To: Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> Cc: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Jim, That is laughable. We spent six years developing the last guidebook. Only to see ICANN change the rules in myriad ways after application fees were accepted. None of us should have any illusions that they will not do that again, upon whim of any government objector or Verisign. Unless we take away the Board's discretion to do whatever they want whenever they want upon any whim they like. I would be completely in favor of doing that, but we all know it is impossible. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:27 PM Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com<mailto:jim@galwaysg.com>> wrote: This is Exhibit A of why everything needs to be locked down and finalized BEFORE the application window opens. We cannot have rules changing after applications have been submitted and ICANN has accepted application fees. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 12:26 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
We weren't then either, as you are well aware. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:46 PM Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:
But we didn’t have the benefit of the 2012 round like we do this go around. We’re not making the up from scratch.
*From:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 1:35 PM *To:* Jim Prendergast <jim@GALWAYSG.COM> *Cc:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
Jim,
That is laughable. We spent six years developing the last guidebook. Only to see ICANN change the rules in myriad ways after application fees were accepted. None of us should have any illusions that they will not do that again, upon whim of any government objector or Verisign. Unless we take away the Board's discretion to do whatever they want whenever they want upon any whim they like. I would be completely in favor of doing that, but we all know it is impossible.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:27 PM Jim Prendergast <jim@galwaysg.com> wrote:
This is Exhibit A of why everything needs to be locked down and finalized BEFORE the application window opens. We cannot have rules changing after applications have been submitted and ICANN has accepted application fees.
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Rubens Kuhl *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 12:26 PM *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 _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
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 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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.
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/> [Greenberg Traurig] 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 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, and do not use or disseminate the information.
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] 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 <mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> trac@gtlaw.com | <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...> 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. _____ 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.
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/> [Greenberg Traurig] 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 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/> [Greenberg Traurig] 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.
I can't go into details, but they will be launched sooner than that. As for creating a white label registrar, the numbers don't add up in low income / low demand markets. VI was conceived by those living in markets with lots more purchase power than the one I live in. Even Latvia GDP per capita is twice Brazil's, so it might work there; a comparison could be made with Romania and a .bucharest TLD. Rubens
Em 22 de nov de 2019, à(s) 16:54:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> escreveu:
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 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://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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (10)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Jim Prendergast -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kathy Kleiman -
lists＠christopherwilkinson.eu -
Martin Sutton -
Maxim Alzoba -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Rubens Kuhl -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com