2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Thanks Steve. We also note that substantive discussion may not be appropriate since the 2012 round is outside the scope of the work of Sub Pro based on our Charter. (At least that was the approach taken consistently – and rather strenuously - by Leadership in Work Track 4 throughout the process.) It seems the WG could make a policy recommendation as to treatment of unresolved strings applied for in the next round if that is what ICANN staff is looking for in terms of guidance. (This seemed to be what Trang was saying.) I don’ t think we can make policy recommendations about 2012 applications without an amendment to our Charter. But I don’t see any problem making policy recommendations that would apply to strings applied for in the next round that remain unresolved during subsequent rounds or during an FCFS process if approved. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 9:59 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: * In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant * In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Thanks Steve, I am not sure this was discussed ever: A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions). Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet? Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: * In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant * In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> . Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Alexander, This topic has not been specifically covered yet, but we will add it to the list of issues. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com<http://www.comlaude.com> Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:20 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Thanks Steve, I am not sure this was discussed ever: A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions). Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet? Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: * In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant * In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Jeff, Cheryl, Steve, Thanks for the huge amount of time and effort you ( and many others) are all putting in to keep the Sub Pro on track. Could I add the issues around refunds and prioritisation onto the growing list. Of course these have more an impact on the procedural and implementation issues and consequences rather than as a potential policy change recommendation. Perhaps we should /could add an additional column on the procedural & implementation consequences as we go through all the comments in the Sub Groups. Perhaps we could add this to AOB on our next Full Group call to discuss and follow up with ICANN.org / GDD in Kobe. Best , Phil Phil Buckingham From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: 08 February 2019 15:05 To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Alexander, This topic has not been specifically covered yet, but we will add it to the list of issues. Jeff Neuman Senior Vice President Com Laude | Valideus 1751 Pinnacle Drive Suite 600, McLean VA 22102, USA D: +1.703.635.7514 T: +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 E: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com www.comlaude.com Liability cannot be accepted for statements made which are clearly the sender’s own and not made on behalf of Com Laude USA or Valideus USA. This message is intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to us, and immediately and permanently delete it. Do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.Com Laude USA and Valideus are trading names of Consonum, Inc. From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 9:20 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Thanks Steve, I am not sure this was discussed ever: A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions). Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet? Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: * In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant * In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> . Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Alexander, All instances of what you described that I remember (I didn't check) were brands. I believe they all can be traced to a single consultant, and I imagine that the good performance of the 2012 Legal Rights Objection as a deterrence to squatting would prevent the need for it in subsequent procedures. That said, seeing that brands did it in 2012 might lead to people attempting the same trick in generic terms, so we might need to tackle this anyway. Rubens
Em 8 de fev de 2019, à(s) 12:20:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> escreveu:
Thanks Steve,
I am not sure this was discussed ever:
A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions).
Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet?
Thanks,
Alexander.berlin
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
Dear WG Members,
Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably:
In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status.
This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...>.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Rubens, I haven’t checked all community applications, but look at “.shop” – GMO had two applications out there! They operate the gTLD “.shop” now. Not as “community priority”. They invoked the CPE! Got a whopping 6 out of 16 points - http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/shop/shop-cpe-1-890-52063-en.p... Seemingly the “trick” works. Why did we have the limitations – when for a mere 100k (application fee minus refund) you can “opt out”? Especially when you invoke the CPE! It was a 100% legal loophole – and I am NOT “pointing fingers” at “.shop” in retrospective. I just want that we do not provide any incentive for such behavior in the future. Either the “limitations” do not apply when you lose the CPE – or you can’t apply with BOTH types of application. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 5:58 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Alexander, All instances of what you described that I remember (I didn't check) were brands. I believe they all can be traced to a single consultant, and I imagine that the good performance of the 2012 Legal Rights Objection as a deterrence to squatting would prevent the need for it in subsequent procedures. That said, seeing that brands did it in 2012 might lead to people attempting the same trick in generic terms, so we might need to tackle this anyway. Rubens Em 8 de fev de 2019, à(s) 12:20:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > escreveu: Thanks Steve, I am not sure this was discussed ever: A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions). Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet? Thanks, Alexander.berlin From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications Dear WG Members, Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably: * In column E, we have highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant * In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status. This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner. Best, Steve Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our <https://learn.icann.org/> interactive courses and visiting the <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-e...> GNSO Newcomer pages. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO> https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/> https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ 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
participants (6)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alexander Schubert -
Jeff Neuman -
Phil Buckingham -
Rubens Kuhl -
Steve Chan