Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +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/
Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201...> 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan > Sr. Policy Manager > >
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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
That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Martin 100% agree I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored. After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed. For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict? As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process? We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time. Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Martin
100% agree
I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored.
After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed.
For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 *To: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E:jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Kurt Pritz *Sent:*Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM *To:*Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for/not/adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt@kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>
+1.310.400.4184
Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1)Welcome/SOIs
2)Work Track Updates
3)GDD Summit Recap
4)Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...)
5)Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here:https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201...
6)ICANN59 Planning
7)AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan** *
Sr. Policy Manager
**
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
office tel: +1.310.301.5800
office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker All valid points, but for every point there is an equally strong counterpoint. I’m not suggesting that the arguments for or against categories are right or wrong, but I think that completely discounting them causes as many problems as it solves. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 16:16 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict? As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process? We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time. Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Martin 100% agree I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored. After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed. For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi Volker, I think you are making too many presumptions including any potential dilution of barriers of entry. Let's use the facts of the 2012 round to improve the policies and processes. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 15 May 2017, at 16:16, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict? As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process? We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time. Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Martin 100% agree I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored. After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed. For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
In case my last response was not received (it seemed to reject Volker’s email address), please see below. Kind regards Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Begin forwarded message: From: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Date: 15 May 2017 at 16:41:34 CEST To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Hi Volker, I think you are making too many presumptions including any potential dilution of barriers of entry. Let's use the facts of the 2012 round to improve the policies and processes. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 15 May 2017, at 16:16, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict? As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process? We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time. Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Martin 100% agree I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored. After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed. For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Volker and Martin Reference to e-mail below, off course, the lesson learnt of last round of gTLDs is a rich source for the future new applications gTLDs round. Furthermore, if ICANN concerned entities work on the holistic policy for the gTLDs programs then the matter of categories of gTLDs will also be solved in appropriate manners. Regards Iftikhar From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Martin Sutton Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 7:42 PM To: Volker Greimann Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Volker, I think you are making too many presumptions including any potential dilution of barriers of entry. Let's use the facts of the 2012 round to improve the policies and processes. Kind regards, Martin Sent from my iPhone On 15 May 2017, at 16:16, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: One argument against different categories might be accessability of the new gTLDs for applicants. If we reduce requirements for some applicants, why not for all? Will the applicants that benefit from lesser requirements be in a better position to get their TLD in case of a conflict? As an example, say a multi-million company that owns a brand that also is a generic term that a small public benefit initiative is also applying for, on top of the economic advantage that the one applicant has over the other we are now also saying that they must meet lower standards, making it easier and cheaper for them to operate the TLD in the long run, adding additional funds that can be thrown at beating the opponent in an auction process? We would also enter a minefield when a TLD fits into multiple categories. Does it then have to fulfill the requirements of all the categories or just the one the applicant intends to use it for? As we have seen, use cases may change over time. Am 15.05.2017 um 15:30 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight: Martin 100% agree I never understood why the concept of categories was rejected. Saying it’s “hard” does not mean it’s “impossible” or that it shouldn’t be explored. After the lack of categories we (the community) had to then deal with a complicated patchwork of exemptions and other funky manipulations to get around the quite meaningless limitations that were being imposed. For example, this weekend in Madrid ICANN shared some stats about SLA breaches from new TLD registries. Some people would argue that a “.brand” should not have to meet the same SLA targets as a “.generic”. While I can understand the logic of that argument the current lack of categories does not allow for that kind of differentiation. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday 15 May 2017 at 15:25 To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM *To: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
*Martin Sutton*
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Pritz *Sent:* Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM *To:* Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for *not *adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________
Kurt Pritz
kurt@kjpritz.com
+1.310.400.4184 <(310)%20400-4184>
Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs
2) Work Track Updates
3) GDD Summit Recap
4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551)
5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en
6) ICANN59 Planning
7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org.
Best,
Steve
*Steven Chan*
Sr. Policy Manager
*ICANN*
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <(310)%20339-4410>
office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <(310)%20301-5800>
office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories” is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial âin roundsâ that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for âCategoriesâ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com> wrote: I honestly canât see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: <tel:(703)%20635-7514>+1.703.635.7514 M: <tel:(202)%20549-5079>+1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for todayâs meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, âimpossibleâ) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasnât just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, âyesâ and the other ânoâ? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>kurt@kjpritz.com <tel:(310)%20400-4184>+1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update Different TLD Types (<<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update Public Comment available here: <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>gnso-secs@icann.org.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan⨠Sr. Policy Managerâ¨â¨
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536⨠<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org mobile: <tel:(310)%20339-4410>+1.310.339.4410 office tel: <tel:(310)%20301-5800>+1.310.301.5800 office fax: <tel:(310)%20823-8649>+1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system. Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories” is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update � Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update �� Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@ momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:s teve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager


ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/ sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers
.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5g bVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W 217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- *Jean Guillon* 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France *Phone:* +33.631109837 *Skype & Twitter:* jeanguillon *Web:* www.guillon.com
Are we talking about categories of contracts ? Or are we talking about categories as applications. I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths. The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round. Rob From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system. Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org><mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514><tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079><tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org><mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com><mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> +1.310.400.4184<tel:%2B1.310.400.4184><tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org><mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org><mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>. Best, Steve Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager

 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org><mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:%2B1.310.339.4410><tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:%2B1.310.301.5800><tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:%2B1.310.823.8649><tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com<http://www.guillon.com>
Rob and All I suggest these five categories: 1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant) 2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space. 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” (Still based on letter of support/non-objection). 4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4. 5. For profit TLDs (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage. All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc. For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm...> - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track. All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange). Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
Or are we talking about categories as applications.
I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths.
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
Rob
From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager


ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France
Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Thank you Jannik. This is super helpful to understand the debate. Are you suggesting that priority is somehow given during the application phase to one category over another ? Or are these categories more to define which parts of the contract apply, and perhaps what due dillegence path is taken during the application phase. Rob From: Jannik Skou <js@thomsentrampedach.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:58 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob and All I suggest these five categories: 1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant) 2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space. 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” (Still based on letter of support/non-objection). 4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4. 5. For profit TLDs (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage. All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc. For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track. All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange). Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com<mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com> W http://thomsentrampedach.com On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Are we talking about categories of contracts ? Or are we talking about categories as applications. I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths. The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round. Rob From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com<mailto:jean@guillon.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system. Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager

 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Yes priority (just like a community was granted prio over a standard application in 2012 and a GEO had priority over a standard/community) is granted already at application phase. Still the application has to pass the evaluation, of course. A core argument I try to make is that applications including Q18 and Q45-50 in my view should be binding (or VERY HARD TO CHANGE) and part of the application. Did that answer your questions? Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 14:03, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Thank you Jannik.
This is super helpful to understand the debate.
Are you suggesting that priority is somehow given during the application phase to one category over another ?
Or are these categories more to define which parts of the contract apply, and perhaps what due dillegence path is taken during the application phase.
Rob
From: Jannik Skou <js@thomsentrampedach.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:58 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob and All
I suggest these five categories:
1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant)
2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space.
3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” (Still based on letter of support/non-objection).
4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4.
5. For profit TLDs (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage.
All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc.
For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track.
All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange).
Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss,
Jannik Skou, MBA Partner
Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland
T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
Or are we talking about categories as applications.
I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths.
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
Rob
From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager


ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France
Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Thanks Jannik, And just to be clear, you are suggesting that if a non profit and a brand applied for the same string, the non profit gets it ? I don’t think that there was a GEO priority in 2012 by the way. At least, I don’t recall one in the process. And community in 2012 had a MUCH higher standard than anything you are suggesting as categories now. Rob. On 2017-05-16, 8:57 AM, "Jannik Skou" <js@thomsentrampedach.com> wrote: Yes priority (just like a community was granted prio over a standard application in 2012 and a GEO had priority over a standard/community) is granted already at application phase. Still the application has to pass the evaluation, of course. A core argument I try to make is that applications including Q18 and Q45-50 in my view should be binding (or VERY HARD TO CHANGE) and part of the application. Did that answer your questions? Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com > On 16 May 2017, at 14:03, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: > > Thank you Jannik. > > This is super helpful to understand the debate. > > Are you suggesting that priority is somehow given during the application phase to one category over another ? > > Or are these categories more to define which parts of the contract apply, and perhaps what due dillegence path is taken during the application phase. > > Rob > > From: Jannik Skou <js@thomsentrampedach.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:58 AM > To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC > > Rob and All > > I suggest these five categories: > > 1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality > (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant) > > 2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) > Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space. > > 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” > (Still based on letter of support/non-objection). > > 4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs > (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4. > > 5. For profit TLDs > (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) > “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage. > > All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc. > > For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track. > > All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange). > > > > Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, > > Jannik Skou, MBA > Partner > > Thomsen Trampedach GmbH > Grundstrasse 22a > 6343 Rotkreuz > Switzerland > > T +45.22275696 > M js@thomsentrampedach.com > W http://thomsentrampedach.com > > >> On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: >> >> Are we talking about categories of contracts ? >> >> Or are we talking about categories as applications. >> >> I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths. >> >> The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round. >> >> Rob >> >> From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> >> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM >> To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> >> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC >> >> I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. >> In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". >> Categories offer precision. >> >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: >> >>> Good point! >>> Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system. >>> >>> Jorge >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >>> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ >>> An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC >>> >>> And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: >>> >>> Greg, >>> >>> Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? >>> >>> I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. >>> >>> I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. >>> >>> By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. >>> >>> As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? >>> >>> Rob. >>> >>> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM >>> To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> >>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC >>> >>> I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) >>> >>> There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. >>> >>> There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> Greg Shatan >>> C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> >>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. >>> >>> If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. >>> >>> The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? >>> >>> Rob. >>> >>> From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> >>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM >>> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > >>> Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC >>> >>> That would be helpful. >>> >>> I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> Martin Sutton >>> Executive Director >>> Brand Registry Group >>> martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >>> >>> >>> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. >>> >>> Jeffrey J. Neuman >>> Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA >>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 >>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States >>> E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >>> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> >>> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> >>> @Jintlaw >>> >>> >>> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz >>> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM >>> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC >>> >>> Hi Everyone: >>> >>> In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). >>> >>> It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. >>> >>> Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. >>> >>> Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. >>> >>> The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. >>> >>> In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. >>> >>> The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. >>> >>> For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. >>> >>> Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. >>> >>> While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. >>> >>> I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> ________________ >>> Kurt Pritz >>> kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> >>> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> >>> Skype: kjpritz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear WG Members, >>> >>> Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. >>> >>> 1) Welcome/SOIs >>> 2) Work Track Updates >>> 3) GDD Summit Recap >>> 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) >>> 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... >>> 6) ICANN59 Planning >>> 7) AOB >>> >>> If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. >>> >>> Best, >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> Steven Chan
 >>> Sr. Policy Manager

 >>> >>> ICANN >>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 >>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 >>> steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> >>> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> >>> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> >>> >>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> Content-Disposition: inline >>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >>> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== >>> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >>> ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >>> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean Guillon >> 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle >> 92120 Montrouge >> France >> >> Phone: +33.631109837 >> Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon >> Web: www.guillon.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list >> Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg >
yes a non-for-profit (as long as they can demonstrate they are non-profits (including not bundling with other services) will get the TLD - If the described intended use in the application (i.e. Q18c) is abusing a TM right then brands could file a legal rights objection based on intended use. But for instance .amnesty would have the right for .amnesty even if there was an application for .AMNESTY (TM from Clothing company). (I realise that Amnesty International has a number of TMs). As to Geo priority - I referred to the fact that if a string was “sentenced” GEO you had to demonstrate letter of non-objection/support - so in that way in my view GEOs did gain priority over a standard one - with this suggestion it would be even clearer (I hope) and thus maybe make the GAC happy... Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 15:03, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Thanks Jannik,
And just to be clear, you are suggesting that if a non profit and a brand applied for the same string, the non profit gets it ?
I don’t think that there was a GEO priority in 2012 by the way. At least, I don’t recall one in the process.
And community in 2012 had a MUCH higher standard than anything you are suggesting as categories now.
Rob.
On 2017-05-16, 8:57 AM, "Jannik Skou" <js@thomsentrampedach.com> wrote:
Yes priority (just like a community was granted prio over a standard application in 2012 and a GEO had priority over a standard/community) is granted already at application phase. Still the application has to pass the evaluation, of course.
A core argument I try to make is that applications including Q18 and Q45-50 in my view should be binding (or VERY HARD TO CHANGE) and part of the application.
Did that answer your questions? Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss,
Jannik Skou, MBA Partner
Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland
T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 14:03, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Thank you Jannik.
This is super helpful to understand the debate.
Are you suggesting that priority is somehow given during the application phase to one category over another ?
Or are these categories more to define which parts of the contract apply, and perhaps what due dillegence path is taken during the application phase.
Rob
From: Jannik Skou <js@thomsentrampedach.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:58 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com>, "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob and All
I suggest these five categories:
1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant)
2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space.
3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” (Still based on letter of support/non-objection).
4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4.
5. For profit TLDs (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage.
All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc.
For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track.
All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange).
Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss,
Jannik Skou, MBA Partner
Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland
T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
Or are we talking about categories as applications.
I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths.
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
Rob
From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager


ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France
Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
With reference to Jannik Skou e-mail below, the categories like 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” and 5. For profit TLDs are creating confusion cause of relating to profit TLDs. It is suggested that we may reduce the number of categories and consider into broad categories. Regards Iftikhar From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jannik Skou Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:58 PM To: Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob and All I suggest these five categories: 1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant) 2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space. 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” (Still based on letter of support/non-objection). 4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4. 5. For profit TLDs (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage. All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc. For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track. All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange). Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com<mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com> W http://thomsentrampedach.com On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Are we talking about categories of contracts ? Or are we talking about categories as applications. I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths. The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round. Rob From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com<mailto:jean@guillon.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system. Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com%3cmailto:rob@momentous.com>>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org%3cmailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org%3cmailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com%3cmailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>. Best, Steve Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager

 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com<http://www.guillon.com> _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Iftikhar, I support the direction of consolidating similar categories. I can understand why we would want to lump 3 with 5, but we need to revisit what we want as the key factor that separates a TLD into a different category be based upon their intent in running the TLD (meaning whether its for profit or not). Essentially, you could have that at the top of the hierarchy, but even within the for profit and not-for-profit TLDs there are further break downs such as validated TLDs, open-registration, etc. There are many overlaps that are possible over parent and subcategories. Yet, Geo TLDs seems to be an existing category itself (whether or not is run by the government or with the non-objection of a government). I support the notion of having 3 to 4 categories of TLDs. Furthermore, I also think that each of these should be able to have different contracts with ICANN. If one were to further breakdown those 3 or 4 categories into further subcategories, you could have provisions that may not apply to a certain subcategory. That is a conversation we have been discussing in the WT2, but can certainly be opened up here for feedback. To echo Jannik's model, we might foresee something like the following. 1. Not-for profit 2. For-profit 3. Geo 4. Spec 13 Brands Regards, Michael Flemming On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Iftikhar Hussain Shah <gac1@moitt.gov.pk> wrote:
With reference to Jannik Skou e-mail below, the categories like 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” and 5. For profit TLDs are creating confusion cause of relating to profit TLDs. It is suggested that we may reduce the number of categories and consider into broad categories.
Regards
Iftikhar
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jannik Skou *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:58 PM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob and All
I suggest these five categories:
*1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality *
(Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant)
*2. Not for Profit TLDs* (substituting the “community TLDs”)
Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space.
*3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” *
(Still based on letter of support/non-objection).
*4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs *
(with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4.
*5. For profit TLDs *
(equivalent to "standard application"in 2012)
“For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage.
All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc.
For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/ attachments/20170403/8a973579/GNSOCC2NewgTLDSubProceduresCom mentsfromJannikSkouThomsenTrampedach-0001.pdf - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track.
All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange).
Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss,
Jannik Skou, MBA Partner
Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland
T +45.22275696 <+45%2022%2027%2056%2096> M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
Or are we talking about categories as applications.
I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths.
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
Rob
From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" < gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld- wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote:
Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@ momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld- wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com< mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514><tel:(703)%20635-7514 <(703)%20635-7514>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079><tel:(202)%20549-5079 <(202)%20549-5079>> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld- wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso- newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs. google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 <(310)%20400-4184><tel:(310)%20400-4184 <(310)%20400-4184>
Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto: steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld- subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager


ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 <(310)%20339-4410><tel:(310)%20339-4410 <(310)%20339-4410>> office tel: +1.310.301.5800 <(310)%20301-5800><tel:(310)%20301-5800 <(310)%20301-5800>> office fax: +1.310.823.8649 <(310)%20823-8649><tel:(310)%20823-8649 <(310)%20823-8649>>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/ sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers
.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5g bVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W 217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France
Phone: +33.631109837 <+33%206%2031%2010%2098%2037> Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Michael Thanks for this, we are on the same page, I just give an example of cat 3 and cat 5 . Regards Iftikhar From: Michael Flemming [mailto:flemming@brightsconsulting.com] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:14 AM To: Iftikhar Hussain Shah Cc: Jannik Skou; Rob Hall; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Iftikhar, I support the direction of consolidating similar categories. I can understand why we would want to lump 3 with 5, but we need to revisit what we want as the key factor that separates a TLD into a different category be based upon their intent in running the TLD (meaning whether its for profit or not). Essentially, you could have that at the top of the hierarchy, but even within the for profit and not-for-profit TLDs there are further break downs such as validated TLDs, open-registration, etc. There are many overlaps that are possible over parent and subcategories. Yet, Geo TLDs seems to be an existing category itself (whether or not is run by the government or with the non-objection of a government). I support the notion of having 3 to 4 categories of TLDs. Furthermore, I also think that each of these should be able to have different contracts with ICANN. If one were to further breakdown those 3 or 4 categories into further subcategories, you could have provisions that may not apply to a certain subcategory. That is a conversation we have been discussing in the WT2, but can certainly be opened up here for feedback. To echo Jannik's model, we might foresee something like the following. 1. Not-for profit 2. For-profit 3. Geo 4. Spec 13 Brands Regards, Michael Flemming On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Iftikhar Hussain Shah <gac1@moitt.gov.pk<mailto:gac1@moitt.gov.pk>> wrote: With reference to Jannik Skou e-mail below, the categories like 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” and 5. For profit TLDs are creating confusion cause of relating to profit TLDs. It is suggested that we may reduce the number of categories and consider into broad categories. Regards Iftikhar From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jannik Skou Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:58 PM To: Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob and All I suggest these five categories: 1. Geo TLD operated and sponsored by State/Region/Province/Municipality (Lower costs as Q45-50 is irrelevant) 2. Not for Profit TLDs (substituting the “community TLDs”) Annual reports to be sent to ICANN for audit – OR national authorities to approve the annual report (and sent to ICANN) to allow for continued operation of TLDs. NOTE Not for Profits should pay reduced SLA fees to ICANN AND be able to apply for financial support from surplus (like “less represented” region applicants”) to promote diversity in the new gTLD space. 3. Geo TLD operated by private entity “for profit” (Still based on letter of support/non-objection). 4. Spec 13 .BRANDs TLDs (with TMs in TMCH prior to publication of next “Applicant Guidebook” and timeline for application window (at least 8 Months before the opening of the next window). Exemption of Code of Conduct TLDs (primarily, .brands with no TM in TMCH) are also in Category 4. 5. For profit TLDs (equivalent to "standard application"in 2012) “For profit TLDs” can be open, nexus-based or “restricted/verification TLDs” In case of contention: the lowest number of category is granted the TLD. If two applicants apply for identical string in the same category, same contention set resolution process (eventually ICANN Auction) as in round 2012 should apply. NOTE applicants/operators are NOT allowed to change registration policy, once delegated. (Or maybe after a public comment period, but should be difficult to avoid “gaming” the categories to gain an advantage. All applications must be part of the RA - changing category should allow for any contention set applicants to bid on the TLD - and if no contention set, a public comment period would be needed AND the RA to be updated including business plans etc. For details on pricing/bundling of applications etc. see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17/attachm... - This would maybe make GAC happy in regards to GEO/Brand conflicts (GEOs would have to apply to avoid a .brand from getting it - and would get it, if applied for. (I may be naive here), the CPE “farce” would be avoided - and diversity (“non-for-profit”) would be supported and .brands (majority of next round applications most likely) AND ICANN panelist would have an easier track. All categories have the same RA - but the application is PART of the RA (and everything in the Application is made public (apart from private addresses of companies listed on any stock exchange). Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696<tel:+45%2022%2027%2056%2096> M js@thomsentrampedach.com<mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com> W http://thomsentrampedach.com On 16 May 2017, at 13:23, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Are we talking about categories of contracts ? Or are we talking about categories as applications. I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLD’s. But not different application processes or paths. The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round. Rob From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com<mailto:jean@guillon.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system. Jorge ________________________________ Von: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com%3cmailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com%3cmailto:rob@momentous.com>>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org%3cmailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org%3cmailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com%3cmailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514><tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079><tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com%3cmailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184><tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (< https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update –“ Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org%3cmailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>. Best, Steve Steven Chan
 Sr. Policy Manager

 ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org%3cmailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410><tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800><tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649><tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses 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/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France Phone: +33.631109837<tel:+33%206%2031%2010%2098%2037> Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: www.guillon.com<http://www.guillon.com> _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
If we choose to have categories (which we de facto already did in the first round, despite the nomenclature) we can choose to do either or both, and to set the rules about whether or how a TLD can change categories. Alan At 16/05/2017 07:23 AM, Rob Hall wrote:
Are we talking about categories of contracts ?
Or are we talking about categories as applications.
I think the distinction is important. I can see different contracts for different types of TLDâs. But not different application processes or paths.
The problem is when a TLD wants to change from one contract to another, as we are starting to see in the current round.
Rob
From: Jean Guillon <jean@guillon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 7:14 AM To: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "gregshatanipc@gmail.com" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I'd say that categories make sense. Applicants can identify where they want to go to. In round one, ".BRAND new gTLDs were considered as generic TLDs "with options". Categories offer precision.
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, <<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> wrote: Good point! Past mistakes with some TLD tracks do not mean that we should throw away the baby with the bathing water, but that we learn from them and improve the system.
Jorge
________________________________
Von: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Datum: 16. Mai 2017 um 04:15:36 MESZ An: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial âin roundsâ that we are dre doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for âCategoriesâ is to try and sad say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly canât see the purpose of categories.
br> If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
Cc: " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: <tel:%2B1.703.635.7514>+1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: <tel:%2B1.202.549.5079>+1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for todayââ¬s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the diffferent TLD types. (See, <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, âimpossibleâ ) to imo implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasnât just a process failure, the tastask itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, âyesâ and the othhe other ânoâ? This sort of issue is simple compae compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com>kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> <tel:%2B1.310.400.4184>+1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update Different TLD Types (< <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update â Public Commentt available here: <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en>https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan⨠Sr. Policy Managerâ¨â¨â¬Â¨
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536⨠<maillto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: <tel:%2B1.310.339.4410>+1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: <tel:%2B1.310.301.5800>+1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: <tel:%2B1.310.823.8649>+1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649>
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
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/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:hi4CACBB3Lp+ZHUitWUixlzelAnYT8HbF2jNB4Oj5gbVjcsd/Z94dSJhdcFaMF+jrvbE01uBDKEf+4TL1FAPiafCPyvdkTY57bx11hClP4W217gScB9mJ6s0Riy62WpK7UaDkIBh4/XvxDXMj+za9w== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jean Guillon 6 Boulevard du Général De Gaulle 92120 Montrouge France
Phone: +33.631109837 Skype & Twitter: jeanguillon Web: <http://www.guillon.com>www.guillon.com
Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
Categories don’t go away. A .brand TLD shouldn’t be forced to follow the same criteria as an open TLD. Someone suggested that this difference could be handled via contracts, but either way if there’s more than one type of contract that creates de facto categories. And they’re definitely needed. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Date: Tuesday 16 May 2017 at 15:37 To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
If categories are used, gaming should be prevented as well as possible. For example, a .BRAND should not be allowed to "permit use" of the TLD to third parties if it benefitted from this status in its application and unless it agrees to comply with the rules and contractual requirements of any other open TLD. I am also not entirely sold on the non-for-profit idea, since it is entirely possible for a non-for-profit organization to be set up that pays its employees royally just to avoid making a profit but in all other resprects acts as a for-profit. Or a non-for-profit org could conceivably use the TLD as a cash cow to fund its other NFP operations. Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 15:47 schrieb Michele Neylon - Blacknight:
Categories don�t go away.
A .brand TLD shouldn�t be forced to follow the same criteria as an open TLD.
Someone suggested that this difference could be handled via contracts, but either way if there�s more than one type of contract that creates de facto categories. And they�re definitely needed.
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,
Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> *Date: *Tuesday 16 May 2017 at 15:37 *To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don�t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don�t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of �fast tracking� certain categories � and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no �generic keyword based� term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think �.bar�) � obtain the letter of non-objection � and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and �� market to �bars�. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a �brand� in regard to the DNS. At minimum the �brand� had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) � AND should NOT be �generic�. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else � and see whether there is contention. In the real life �generic term based Brand protection� works because you can exempt the term�s natural meaning from being protected � in the DNS there are no �Trademark Goods and Services Classes�: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand �sun�: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD �.sun� � but you. You haven�t protected �SUN� from being used � just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname �sun�? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And �communities� or �non-profits�? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess � and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) � once the applications are all in: we might �side-track� GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of �windows� (rounds) to �an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann�s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions � we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual �rounds�. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the �adjustment� to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1^st and the 2^nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller �adjustments� � they could be added �on the fly�. I guess the 2^nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN�s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3^rd round could be set 2 years after the 2^nd , the 4^th a year after the 3^rd , then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants � and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories” is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> *Cc: *Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
*Greg Shatan** *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf�gung. Mit freundlichen Gr��en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch�ftsf�hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f�r den angegebenen Empf�nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver�ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf�nger ist unzul�ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f�r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
+1 Katrin DOTZON GmbH - incubating name spaces Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.com<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.com> www.dotzon.com<http://www.dotzon.com/> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Michele Neylon - Blacknight Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. Mai 2017 15:48 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Categories don’t go away. A .brand TLD shouldn’t be forced to follow the same criteria as an open TLD. Someone suggested that this difference could be handled via contracts, but either way if there’s more than one type of contract that creates de facto categories. And they’re definitely needed. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ https://ceo.hosting/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265, Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Date: Tuesday 16 May 2017 at 15:37 To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
Alex I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. If we had a round of 3 months, where anyone could apply, and then it just became first come first serve after that, you would have no rush. No technology would help. There would be no mad rush at the end of the round. There would be no point to it. People would apply for the TLD they wanted when they wanted to. Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD�s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with �free market access� and �competition�? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn�t matter whether it is a �round� or an �ongoing process� � the number of applications won�t change.
If you have no �round� � what is it then? The only other thing than a �round� is �First Comes First Served�. That�s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best �gTLD snapping technology�. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a �round� once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won�t be only ICANN insiders who apply � but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague �promise� of a next round in �about a year� � we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn�t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later � ICANN�s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it�s almost like your �continuous application mechanism� with one �launch date� � just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don�t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don�t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of �fast tracking� certain categories � and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no �generic keyword based� term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think �.bar�) � obtain the letter of non-objection � and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and �� market to �bars�. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a �brand� in regard to the DNS. At minimum the �brand� had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) � AND should NOT be �generic�. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else � and see whether there is contention. In the real life �generic term based Brand protection� works because you can exempt the term�s natural meaning from being protected � in the DNS there are no �Trademark Goods and Services Classes�: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand �sun�: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD �.sun� � but you. You haven�t protected �SUN� from being used � just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname �sun�? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And �communities� or �non-profits�? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess � and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) � once the applications are all in: we might �side-track� GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of �windows� (rounds) to �an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann�s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions � we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual �rounds�. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the �adjustment� to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1^st and the 2^nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller �adjustments� � they could be added �on the fly�. I guess the 2^nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN�s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3^rd round could be set 2 years after the 2^nd , the 4^th a year after the 3^rd , then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants � and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories” is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> *Cc: *Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
*Greg Shatan** *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verf�gung. Mit freundlichen Gr��en, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Gesch�ftsf�hrer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur f�r den angegebenen Empf�nger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Ver�ffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empf�nger ist unzul�ssig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht f�r Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1^st and the 2^nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2^nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3^rd round could be set 2 years after the 2^nd , the 4^th a year after the 3^rd , then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> *Cc: *Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
*Greg Shatan** *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
*From: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1^st and the 2^nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2^nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3^rd round could be set 2 years after the 2^nd , the 4^th a year after the 3^rd , then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Alan Greenberg *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Date: *Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> *Cc: *Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
*Greg Shatan** *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up” demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out”? Why not “cut to the chase” and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good” requirement. “Community” is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association”. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel” factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a window for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rights, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all comers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - First Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CE56.414CFEC0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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.
Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after the round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up” demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out”? Why not “cut to the chase” and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good” requirement. “Community” is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association”. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel” factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a window for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rights, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all comers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - First Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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.
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I donât believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS after thee round- model.
Rob
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is âpent-upâ demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to âwork it outâ? Why not âcut to the chaseâ and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they canât be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. Itâs up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we donât trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a âsocial goodâ requirement. âCommunityâ is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of âvirtual associationâ.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an âestoppelâ factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because itâs all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 FFCFS - No window all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ []
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought Iâd add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? Iâm not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com><rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLDâs had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLDâs.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>"alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with âfree market accessâ and âcompetitionâ? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesnât matter whether it is a âroundâ or an âongoing processâ thhe number of applications wonât change.
If you have no âroundâ what is it then? The only othher thing than a âroundâ is âFirst Comes First Servedâ. Thatâs a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best âgTLD snapping technologyâ. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a âroundâ once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it wonât be only ICANN insiders who apply but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague âpromiseâ of a next round in âabout a yearâ we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldnât make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later ICANNâs capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So itâs almost like your âcontinuous application mechanismâ with one âlaunch dateâ just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [<mailto:rob@momentous.com>mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>alexander@schubert.berlin; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we donât explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we donât layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>alexander@schubert.berlin" <<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of âfast trackingâ certain categories and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no âgeneric keyword basedâ term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think â.barâ) obtainn the letter of non-objection and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and ¦ market to âbarsâ. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a âbrandâ in regard to the DNS. At minimum the âbrandâ had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) AND should NOT be âgenericâ. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else and see whether theere is contention. In the real life âgeneric term based Brand protectionâ works because you can exempt the termâs natural meaning from being protected in the DNNS there are no âTrademark Goods and Services Classesâ: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand âsunâ: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD â.sunâ but you. You havenât protected âSUNâ froom being used just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname âsunâ? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And âcommunitiesâ or ânon-profitsâ? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) once the applications are all in: we might âside-trackâ GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of âwindowsâ (rounds) to âan ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumannâs suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual âroundsâ. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the âadjustmentâ to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller âadjustmentsâ they could be added âon the flyâ. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANNâs capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial âin roundsâ that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for âCategoriesâ¢â¬ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com> wrote: I honestly canât see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > Cc: "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>+1.703.635.7514 M: <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>+1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>steve.chan@icann.org>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for todayââ¢s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, âimpossibleâ) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasnât ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, âyesâ and the other ânoâ? T¢noââ¬â¢? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen GrüÃen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen GrüÃen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen GrüÃen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: <http://www.key-systems.net>www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
<http://www.keydrive.lu>www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
----------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / <http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / <http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / <http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / <http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / <http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / <http://www.brandshelter.com/> www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ [image: ]] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin" < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
So basically rolling windows instead of FCFS? When one window closes the next one immediately opens, or will open after a cool-off period? Am 17.05.2017 um 07:28 schrieb Greg Shatan:
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ ] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>
Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...> ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
This is consistent with many of the discussions. The rolling windows can be be frequent enough to avoid painful delays but allow the process to be managed by ICANN, with appropriate resourcing, and to preform any of the required assessments, objection and pre-delegation routines. These do not all need to be completed before the next cycle starts but can run in parallel. This would respond well to the issues of unpredictability experienced in the 2012 round. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 17 May 2017, at 10:27, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> wrote: So basically rolling windows instead of FCFS? When one window closes the next one immediately opens, or will open after a cool-off period? Am 17.05.2017 um 07:28 schrieb Greg Shatan: I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ 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
Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Rob – not all trademarks are on a FCFS basis. While many jurisdictions to employ a “First to file” priority system, many others, including the US, Canada & Australia, employ a “First to use” system, whereby if someone files to register a mark you used prior to their application filing date, you can come in and block that application from proceeding as your use would take priority over their application. This is what Greg was advocating for, which I support, a system where by each application in essence triggers a “round”. There is a defined period whereby others with interest in the same string could apply and specific, predictable criteria which would determine which application will proceed. Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo@sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:54 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Karen, It is still a FCFS system I believe. First use, first application. It is based on a date. Not a round of applications. I know of no trademark or patent system that says “hey, go look at what someone else has applied for and then you can apply for exactly that same invention or mark”. You would basically be violating the persons intellectual property in their application. They thought of it first, they applied for it, but who cares. Lets let everyone else pile on. Rob. From: Karen Day <Karen.Day@sas.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob – not all trademarks are on a FCFS basis. While many jurisdictions to employ a “First to file” priority system, many others, including the US, Canada & Australia, employ a “First to use” system, whereby if someone files to register a mark you used prior to their application filing date, you can come in and block that application from proceeding as your use would take priority over their application. This is what Greg was advocating for, which I support, a system where by each application in essence triggers a “round”. There is a defined period whereby others with interest in the same string could apply and specific, predictable criteria which would determine which application will proceed. Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo@sas.com 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:54 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
In your FCFS system, Rob, are you still advocating for the opportunity for Legal Rights Objections to be filed? If so, then what is the harm, if you would prevail on an LRO basis to be allowed to claim the TLD yourself by having your application proceed, not just knocking out the first applicant to make it to the filing clerk? Karen From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:59 AM To: Karen Day <Karen.Day@sas.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Karen, It is still a FCFS system I believe. First use, first application. It is based on a date. Not a round of applications. I know of no trademark or patent system that says “hey, go look at what someone else has applied for and then you can apply for exactly that same invention or mark”. You would basically be violating the persons intellectual property in their application. They thought of it first, they applied for it, but who cares. Lets let everyone else pile on. Rob. From: Karen Day <Karen.Day@sas.com<mailto:Karen.Day@sas.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob – not all trademarks are on a FCFS basis. While many jurisdictions to employ a “First to file” priority system, many others, including the US, Canada & Australia, employ a “First to use” system, whereby if someone files to register a mark you used prior to their application filing date, you can come in and block that application from proceeding as your use would take priority over their application. This is what Greg was advocating for, which I support, a system where by each application in essence triggers a “round”. There is a defined period whereby others with interest in the same string could apply and specific, predictable criteria which would determine which application will proceed. Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo@sas.com<mailto:gTLDinfo@sas.com> 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:54 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Karen. Absolutely. Legal Rights Objections are part of the process now and should remain. I am not advocating changing the process after application. In my model, if you wanted the domain for yourself you could apply for it as well. If the previous application was knocked out for any reason, then yours would become the next in line and would be dealt with. But you would NOT be in a contention set. We would never again have contention sets and all the hassles that come with them. No more auctions, private or ICANN. Honestly, getting to a state without rounds is the only way to prevent gaming. Rob From: Karen Day <Karen.Day@sas.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:05 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC In your FCFS system, Rob, are you still advocating for the opportunity for Legal Rights Objections to be filed? If so, then what is the harm, if you would prevail on an LRO basis to be allowed to claim the TLD yourself by having your application proceed, not just knocking out the first applicant to make it to the filing clerk? Karen From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:59 AM To: Karen Day <Karen.Day@sas.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Karen, It is still a FCFS system I believe. First use, first application. It is based on a date. Not a round of applications. I know of no trademark or patent system that says “hey, go look at what someone else has applied for and then you can apply for exactly that same invention or mark”. You would basically be violating the persons intellectual property in their application. They thought of it first, they applied for it, but who cares. Lets let everyone else pile on. Rob. From: Karen Day <Karen.Day@sas.com<mailto:Karen.Day@sas.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:45 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob – not all trademarks are on a FCFS basis. While many jurisdictions to employ a “First to file” priority system, many others, including the US, Canada & Australia, employ a “First to use” system, whereby if someone files to register a mark you used prior to their application filing date, you can come in and block that application from proceeding as your use would take priority over their application. This is what Greg was advocating for, which I support, a system where by each application in essence triggers a “round”. There is a defined period whereby others with interest in the same string could apply and specific, predictable criteria which would determine which application will proceed. Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo@sas.com<mailto:gTLDinfo@sas.com> 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:54 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I think sort of system would discourage creativity, give notice to registry operators as to how to “block” or delay certain competitors and result in lots of delay and legal fees. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEEC.78DB08F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Karen Day Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 6:45 AM To: Rob Hall; Greg Shatan; Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob – not all trademarks are on a FCFS basis. While many jurisdictions to employ a “First to file” priority system, many others, including the US, Canada & Australia, employ a “First to use” system, whereby if someone files to register a mark you used prior to their application filing date, you can come in and block that application from proceeding as your use would take priority over their application. This is what Greg was advocating for, which I support, a system where by each application in essence triggers a “round”. There is a defined period whereby others with interest in the same string could apply and specific, predictable criteria which would determine which application will proceed. Karen _______________________________________________________________ Karen L. Day, ACP NCCP SAS Registry Operations Manager Tel: + 1 919-531-6016 ▪ gTLDinfo@sas.com<mailto:gTLDinfo@sas.com> 100 Matrix Drive ▪ Cary, NC 27513 USA www.nic.sas<http://www.nic.sas/>; www.nic.jmp<http://www.nic.jmp/>; www.nic.analytics<http://www.nic.analytics/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:54 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC EXTERNAL Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Rob, There is TWO big differences between “Patents and trademarks” and “gTLDs”: 1. If ICANN had started a FCFS application modus in 1985 – we would be on the same page as TMs. 2. A TM doesn’t “take away” the string from public use. It only creates a right for the TM holder to legally challenge the use of that string FOR A VERY SPECIFIC and VERY LIMITED set of goods and services (not even for an entire class btw). BUT in the DNS there is no classifications – once you own a TLD it is taken for everybody! Just completely incomparable. If “TMs” (or rather “Brands”) were ever to be fast-tracked and could apply BEFORE anybody else then we would make to be sure that: 1. They are “Famous Brands” (e.g. TMs in 50 nations since a cutoff date of 2011 and other criteria) 2. They are NOT GENERIC TERM BASED! So nothing that you find on Wikipedia (other than the Brand itself), in a dictionary, map, etc. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:54 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _____ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> > X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Alex, My point was not to say they are identical. My point was that the process for applying for them is largely FCFS. And I think if you were to look at a TLD as a patent that was filed in every country, perhaps that would help you. Yes, TLD’s are global, and patents and TM’s are national. I think we all understand that disctinction. But within any patent or trademark office, they don’t ever do rounds. Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, There is TWO big differences between “Patents and trademarks” and “gTLDs”: 1. If ICANN had started a FCFS application modus in 1985 – we would be on the same page as TMs. 2. A TM doesn’t “take away” the string from public use. It only creates a right for the TM holder to legally challenge the use of that string FOR A VERY SPECIFIC and VERY LIMITED set of goods and services (not even for an entire class btw). BUT in the DNS there is no classifications – once you own a TLD it is taken for everybody! Just completely incomparable. If “TMs” (or rather “Brands”) were ever to be fast-tracked and could apply BEFORE anybody else then we would make to be sure that: 1. They are “Famous Brands” (e.g. TMs in 50 nations since a cutoff date of 2011 and other criteria) 2. They are NOT GENERIC TERM BASED! So nothing that you find on Wikipedia (other than the Brand itself), in a dictionary, map, etc. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:54 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
First, I think we would just trade one set of gaming risks for another. For instance, how would we prevent speculation in undeveloped TLDs? FCFS would massively encourage this type of activity, especially if/when application fees come down. Second, the differences between IP protection and TLD ownership are too great for the comparison to be useful. There's a lot more to priority in TMs and patents than simply "first to file." Above all, trademark rights are tied to use, since a trademark serves as a signal of unique source of goods and services (going back to when tradesmen left their mark on goods they produced). Regardless of jurisdiction, a trademark must be used in order to maintain ownership (and in many jurisdictions, use is required prior to registration). Registration is really a reflection of use, rather than a license to use. The preclusive effect of a trademark registration is far less than a TLD registration, and the preclusive effect of a trademark application even less so. With patents, novelty and non-obviousness provides an overriding check on patent issuance. Also, a patent is a limited-in-time right with a specific expiration date, and a trademark registration can only be maintained as long as it is used. Do we want TLDs to have an expiration date? Finally, there are reasons that trademark protection and patent protection serve the public interest. What's the public interest in FCFS? A better comparison is to real property. With terms like "land rush" at the second level the analogy is clear. Even in a land rush, the horses are held back until the gun sounds. If ICANN was opening up a new housing development, would it be in the public interest to allow the first to each doorstep to own the house? Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Alex,
My point was not to say they are identical.
My point was that the process for applying for them is largely FCFS.
And I think if you were to look at a TLD as a patent that was filed in every country, perhaps that would help you.
Yes, TLD’s are global, and patents and TM’s are national. I think we all understand that disctinction.
But within any patent or trademark office, they don’t ever do rounds.
Rob.
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
There is TWO big differences between “Patents and trademarks” and “gTLDs”:
1. If ICANN had started a FCFS application modus in 1985 – we would be on the same page as TMs.
2. A TM doesn’t “take away” the string from public use. It only creates a right for the TM holder to legally challenge the use of that string FOR A VERY SPECIFIC and VERY LIMITED set of goods and services (not even for an entire class btw). BUT in the DNS there is no classifications – once you own a TLD it is taken for everybody!
Just completely incomparable.
If “TMs” (or rather “Brands”) were ever to be fast-tracked and could apply BEFORE anybody else then we would make to be sure that:
1. They are “Famous Brands” (e.g. TMs in 50 nations since a cutoff date of 2011 and other criteria)
2. They are NOT GENERIC TERM BASED! So nothing that you find on Wikipedia (other than the Brand itself), in a dictionary, map, etc.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:54 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Greg,
Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations).
Can you help me understand why this is different ?
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM *To: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> *Cc: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ *Error! Filename not specified.* Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin" < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Thanks Greg. This is helpful. I think your point about due process with patents and trademarks is bang on. But I think we have that same process with TLD’s. We have developed a long evaluation and protest process that is similar to other IP registries. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about FCFS APPLICATIONS, not just giving the TLD away instantly. I think the land rush analogy may work best of all. ICANN is opening up new land. Lets say the entire US. Little or No land is currently owned. It has divided the entire US up into parcels of land, and they are all the same price. To deal with the rush, they have a period at first where you can apply for a parcel you want, and there is a process to deal with what happens when more than one person applies for it. Lets call it a round. As expected, most of the parcels applied for are on the east coast initially. After that time period where you can apply, basically a cutoff, you can then go and apply for any remaining parcel. You want to ride out to Colorado and grab one there, go for it. First to put a stake in it gets it. Provided they pay for it and meet any criteria we put on it, such as not infringing others. At first, no one wants most of the land. As they think they want a piece, they apply and it is granted. I think that is actually the way the original land rushes occurred. Rob From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC First, I think we would just trade one set of gaming risks for another. For instance, how would we prevent speculation in undeveloped TLDs? FCFS would massively encourage this type of activity, especially if/when application fees come down. Second, the differences between IP protection and TLD ownership are too great for the comparison to be useful. There's a lot more to priority in TMs and patents than simply "first to file." Above all, trademark rights are tied to use, since a trademark serves as a signal of unique source of goods and services (going back to when tradesmen left their mark on goods they produced). Regardless of jurisdiction, a trademark must be used in order to maintain ownership (and in many jurisdictions, use is required prior to registration). Registration is really a reflection of use, rather than a license to use. The preclusive effect of a trademark registration is far less than a TLD registration, and the preclusive effect of a trademark application even less so. With patents, novelty and non-obviousness provides an overriding check on patent issuance. Also, a patent is a limited-in-time right with a specific expiration date, and a trademark registration can only be maintained as long as it is used. Do we want TLDs to have an expiration date? Finally, there are reasons that trademark protection and patent protection serve the public interest. What's the public interest in FCFS? A better comparison is to real property. With terms like "land rush" at the second level the analogy is clear. Even in a land rush, the horses are held back until the gun sounds. If ICANN was opening up a new housing development, would it be in the public interest to allow the first to each doorstep to own the house? Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Alex, My point was not to say they are identical. My point was that the process for applying for them is largely FCFS. And I think if you were to look at a TLD as a patent that was filed in every country, perhaps that would help you. Yes, TLD’s are global, and patents and TM’s are national. I think we all understand that disctinction. But within any patent or trademark office, they don’t ever do rounds. Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 10:57 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, There is TWO big differences between “Patents and trademarks” and “gTLDs”: 1. If ICANN had started a FCFS application modus in 1985 – we would be on the same page as TMs. 2. A TM doesn’t “take away” the string from public use. It only creates a right for the TM holder to legally challenge the use of that string FOR A VERY SPECIFIC and VERY LIMITED set of goods and services (not even for an entire class btw). BUT in the DNS there is no classifications – once you own a TLD it is taken for everybody! Just completely incomparable. If “TMs” (or rather “Brands”) were ever to be fast-tracked and could apply BEFORE anybody else then we would make to be sure that: 1. They are “Famous Brands” (e.g. TMs in 50 nations since a cutoff date of 2011 and other criteria) 2. They are NOT GENERIC TERM BASED! So nothing that you find on Wikipedia (other than the Brand itself), in a dictionary, map, etc. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:54 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
There are actually many differences... 2 key ones that come to mind: 1. for TM, entity A can register a TM "x" but entity B could keep using "x" and if entity A does not enforce their TM (for whatever reason or maybe simply cause the class is different), entity B's use of "x" becomes ok and legit in many sense (even if they do not file for a TM). For a TLD, if entity A gets TLD "xxxx" entity B cannot just go ahead and use "xxxx".... 2. for TM it is based on jurisdiction... for TLD, almost "each TLD" becomes a "jurisdiction" (just conceptually for comparison's sake) Edmon From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2017 19:54 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _____ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> > X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Edmon, You could say the same thing about a .com domain name. My point was about the application process for an incredibly valuable piece of IP. Not that they are identical. Rob From: Edmon Chung <edmon@registry.asia> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:10 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, 'Greg Shatan' <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC There are actually many differences... 2 key ones that come to mind: 1. for TM, entity A can register a TM "x" but entity B could keep using "x" and if entity A does not enforce their TM (for whatever reason or maybe simply cause the class is different), entity B's use of "x" becomes ok and legit in many sense (even if they do not file for a TM). For a TLD, if entity A gets TLD "xxxx" entity B cannot just go ahead and use "xxxx".... 2. for TM it is based on jurisdiction... for TLD, almost "each TLD" becomes a "jurisdiction" (just conceptually for comparison's sake) Edmon From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, 17 May 2017 19:54 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, Patents and trademarks are done on a FCFS basis. One might argue they are more valuable than a TLD. They are published on a regular basis so all know when to watch for them. They go through evaluations (examinations). Can you help me understand why this is different ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 1:28 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Error! Filename not specified. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEE9.B5F3A0B0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin" < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
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.
Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CF05.8DF2EE60] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. *At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.* *On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.* *The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.* *An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.* *[image: Inline image 1]* P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin" < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
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.
Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEF1.CF4E2190] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. [Inline image 1] P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D2CEF1.91A0F250] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, *Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule.... *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*[image: Inline image 1]*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin" < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman < jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image006.png@01D2CEFE.27506180] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEFE.26FAA060] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. [Inline image 1] P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image005.png@01D2CEFE.26FAA060] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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.
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule....
<>Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.
On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.
The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.
An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.
<image004.png>
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
<>Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
Greg Shatan <>C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...> ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
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. _______________________________________________ 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>
LOL ;-) Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEFF.E8369800] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:16 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Greg Shatan; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the *Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine* would be more on point? :-) *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
*Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule....
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*<image004.png>*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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
I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to. - Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different. - The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe - One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ? I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions. Rubens
Em 17 de mai de 2017, à(s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> escreveu:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-)
<>Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule....
<>Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.
On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.
The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.
An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.
<image004.png>
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
Greg Shatan <>C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...> ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ 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>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
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. _______________________________________________ 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>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS *outside* the round -- i.e., every application in the round is ahead of any (not yet applied for) application outside the round , but every application in the round is treated equally (with the exception of community applications, which are more equal than other applications). Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my email. Great minds, etc. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to.
- Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different. - The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe - One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ?
I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions.
Rubens
Em 17 de mai de 2017, à(s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> escreveu:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM *To: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the *Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine* would be more on point? :-)
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct* *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax* *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
*Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule....
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*<image004.png>*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese* Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman* *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA* 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Greg, Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ???? That’s not the case at all. I am suggesting do a round, where everyone who applies during the round window is equal. Then, the second the round end, applications are available on a FCFS basis. Of course, if a string was applied for IN the round, it would take precedence over any other application filled following the round. And all applications in the round would be treated as equals in terms of filing times. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS outside the round -- i.e., every application in the round is ahead of any (not yet applied for) application outside the round , but every application in the round is treated equally (with the exception of community applications, which are more equal than other applications). Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my email. Great minds, etc. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to. - Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different. - The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe - One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ? I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions. Rubens Em 17 de mai de 2017, à(s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> escreveu: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Is it just me, or has our entire workplan and subteam effort been short-circuited? gTLDs are important to me, but with the volume of e-mail we are seeing, this is requiring too much of my day. Alan At 17/05/2017 08:14 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ????
Thatâs not the case at all. I am suggesting do a round, where everyone who applies during the round window is equal. Then, the second the round end, applications are available on a FCFS basis. Of course, if a string was applied for IN the round, it would take precedence over any other application filled following the round.
And all applications in the round would be treated as equals in terms of filing times.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS outside the round -- i.e., every application in the round is ahead of any (not yet applied for) application outside the round , but every application in the round is treated equally (with the exception of community applications, which are more equal than other applications).
Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my email. Great minds, etc.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to.
- Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different. - The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe - One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ?
I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions.
Rubens
Em 17 de mai de 2017, Ã (s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com> escreveu:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
From: <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-)
Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote: Shouldnât that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 <tel:(202)%20559-8597>202-559-8597/Direct <tel:(202)%20559-8750>202-559-8750/Fax <tel:(202)%20255-6172>202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand âSeniorityâ as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
âPriorityâ is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if âroundsâ are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy a Great Divide of registries thatt are either âtoo big to failâ or else âtoo small to succeedâ.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel <tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office <tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
From: Greg Shatan [<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule....
Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Greg, Isnât trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics age, gender, interest, etc. (Of courrse he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, âhey wait, I donât want that one to go to someone else Iâm going to appply for .iwatch too and weâll see who wins.â Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, âhey, we can outbid this possible new entrant letâs apply and shut themm down.â This is a system that thwarts creativity.
Itâs just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You canât base an LRO on an IntentTo-Usee application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they wonât front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel <tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office <tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.
On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as âBoomers,â by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.
The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.
An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving âSoonersâpeople who had entered the territory before the legall date and timeoverloaded courts for years to come. Thee government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.
<image004.png>
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com> wrote: Greg,
We have a land rush for TLDâs. Thatâs a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor <<mailto:christa@dottba.com>christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say âhey I want a piece of that action.â Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of âgamingâ.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel <tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office <tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a âround 2â which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: <tel:(703)%20635-7514>+1.703.635.7514 M: <tel:(202)%20549-5079>+1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <<mailto:christa@dottba.com>christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didnât mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I donât think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Canât see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the âContention landrush periodâ, or perhaps âContention Sunriseâ. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
From: Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <<mailto:christa@dottba.com>christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I donât believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS after thee round- model.
Rob
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <<mailto:christa@dottba.com>christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>, "<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is âpent-upâ demanemand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to âwork it outâ ? Why noy not âcut to the chaseâ and work it out with the Ghe GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they canât be revoked or it vo voids the registry agreement. Itâs¢s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we donât trample on certertain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a âsocial goodâ requirement. ââââ¬Communityâ is also about freedom of association, o or in this case, freedom of âvirtual associationââ⬠.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an âestoppelâ factor if geo name not covered by old old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands Yes, I favor a wiindoow for brands. Why? Because itâs al all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 â FFCFS - No window all types of applications welcomee - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel <tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office <tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought Iâd add another.
Appearears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? Iâm not saying th that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <<mailto:rob@momentous.com>rob@momentous.com>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com><rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLDâs had ad a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net><vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLDâs. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>"alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with âfree market accessâ and âcompetitionâ ionâ⬠? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesnât matmatter whether it is a âroundâ or an âongoinongoing processâ thhe number of applications wonâââ¬t change.
+1!! Very truly yours, Karen J. Bernstein Bernstein IP 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10166 Tel: (212) 339-9955 Fax: (212-682-0278 E-Mail: kjb@bernsteinip.com Website: www.BernsteinIP.com Skype: K.Bernsteinlaw This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please forward the email back and delete all copies of the message and attachments. On May 17, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Is it just me, or has our entire workplan and subteam effort been short-circuited? gTLDs are important to me, but with the volume of e-mail we are seeing, this is requiring too much of my day. Alan At 17/05/2017 08:14 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ????
That’s not the case at all. I am suggesting do a round, where everyone who applies during the round window is equal. Then, the second the round end, applications are available on a FCFS basis. Of course, if a string was applied for IN the round, it would take precedence over any other application filled following the round.
And all applications in the round would be treated as equals in terms of filing times.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS outside the round -- i.e., every application in the round is ahead of any (not yet applied for) application outside the round , but every application in the round is treated equally (with the exception of community applications, which are more equal than other applications).
Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my email. Great minds, etc.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> wrote:
I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to.
- Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different. - The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe - One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ?
I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions.
Rubens
Em 17 de mai de 2017, Ã (s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> escreveu:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-)
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority†as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority†is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds†are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries thatt are either “too big to fail†or else “too small to succeedâ€.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule....
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of courrse he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to appply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.†Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut themm down.†This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Usee application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.
On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,†by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.
The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.
An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners‖people who had entered the territory before the legall date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. Thee government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.
<image004.png>
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.†Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gamingâ€.
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote: Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2†which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush periodâ€, or perhaps “Contention Sunriseâ€. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don̢۪t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demanemand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why noy not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the Ghe GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it vo voids the registry agreement. It’s„¢s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certertain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. ââ‚“Community†is also about freedom of association, o or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationââ‚€ .
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands РYes, I favor a wiindoow for brands. Why? Because it̢۪s al all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply Рe.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcomee - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I̢۪d add another.
Appearears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I̢۪m not saying th that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD̢۪s had ad a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD̢۪s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†ion†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matmatter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoin“ongoing process†– thhe number of applications wonâ€Ã¢â‚¬™t change.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Not only yours Alan, but Rubens’ questions is, in my view relevant to find answer. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:40 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Is it just me, or has our entire workplan and subteam effort been short-circuited? gTLDs are important to me, but with the volume of e-mail we are seeing, this is requiring too much of my day. Alan At 17/05/2017 08:14 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ???? That’s not the case at all. I am suggesting do a round, where everyone who applies during the round window is equal. Then, the second the round end, applications are available on a FCFS basis. Of course, if a string was applied for IN the round, it would take precedence over any other application filled following the round. And all applications in the round would be treated as equals in terms of filing times. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS outside the round -- i.e., every application in the round is ahead of any (not yet applied for) application outside the round , but every application in the round is treated equally (with the exception of community applications, which are more equal than other applications). Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my email. Great minds, etc. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@nic.br<mailto:rubensk@nic.br>> wrote: I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to. - Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different. - The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe - One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ? I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions. Rubens Em 17 de mai de 2017, à (s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> escreveu: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority†as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority†is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds†are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries thatt are either “too big to fail†or else “too small to succeedâ€. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of courrse he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to appply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.†Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut themm down.†This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Usee application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,†by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners‖people who had entered the territory before the legall date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. Thee government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.†Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gamingâ€. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2†which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush periodâ€, or perhaps “Contention Sunriseâ€. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demanemand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why noy not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the Ghe GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it vo voids the registry agreement. It’s„¢s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certertain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. ââ‚“Community†is also about freedom of association, o or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationââ‚€ . (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a wiindoow for brands. Why? Because it’s al all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcomee - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appearears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying th that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had ad a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†ion†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matmatter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoin“ongoing process†– thhe number of applications wonâ€Ã¢â‚¬™t change.
Rob, No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation. Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head): 1. An application is received for a TLD. 2. The application is made public. 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing. 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set. 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here. 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above. 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken.
The TLD has no previous application in process.
An application is received for the TLD.
ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM *To: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the * Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine* would be more on point? :-)
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
*Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule....
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*<image004.png>*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CF25.D9AF0030] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM To: Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation. Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head): 1. An application is received for a TLD. 2. The application is made public. 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing. 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set. 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here. 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above. 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards. It could just as easily be the other way. Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy innovator is still out raising funds. I would argue that batching encourages innovation by leveling the playing field. There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be innovative.... There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is, that it will be revealed during the holding period. Perhaps all that will be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y. Greg *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation.
Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head):
1. An application is received for a TLD.
2. The application is made public.
3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing.
4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set.
5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here.
6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above.
8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken.
The TLD has no previous application in process.
An application is received for the TLD.
ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM *To: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the *Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine* would be more on point? :-)
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
*Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule....
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*<image004.png>*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com <rob@momentous.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin <alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso- newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/ spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJff zJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOf ReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpi sNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)( 20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)( 400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------
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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
------------------------------
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.
A reveal and then allowing for others to copy is not advised. And seriously inviting copying. It should be a secret closed 180 days. If a duplicate is filed in that window it gets grouped as a contention set. On May 17, 2017 8:51 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards. It could just as easily be the other way. Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy innovator is still out raising funds. I would argue that batching encourages innovation by leveling the playing field.
There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be innovative....
There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is, that it will be revealed during the holding period. Perhaps all that will be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation.
Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head):
1. An application is received for a TLD.
2. The application is made public.
3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing.
4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set.
5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here.
6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above.
8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken.
The TLD has no previous application in process.
An application is received for the TLD.
ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM *To: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the *Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine* would be more on point? :-)
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
*Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule....
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*<image004.png>*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld -wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtl d-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtl d-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ...
Avri Jeff ALL i expressed doubts about FCFS from the very beginning that it was proposed. ICANN does not have any experience on how it would practically works. Other entities outside ICANN system have long experience on how it works and what are the advantages and drawbacks. When I raised the issue I was told that it is yet to be fully discussed and analyzed very carefully and cautiously. It should not give rise to some sort of warehousing in DNS for those who are quicker than others and have more possibilities than others. Providing the opportunity to file every day or every hours a TLD and then continuing the process of objection is inefficient . The entire process should be looked at again. For the time being I am not in favour of such inefficient and damaging process. Avri and JEFF are kindly requested to take necessary actions on this regards Cheers Kavouss 2017-05-18 6:12 GMT+02:00 Jay Westerdal <jay@topspectrum.com>:
A reveal and then allowing for others to copy is not advised. And seriously inviting copying. It should be a secret closed 180 days. If a duplicate is filed in that window it gets grouped as a contention set.
On May 17, 2017 8:51 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards. It could just as easily be the other way. Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy innovator is still out raising funds. I would argue that batching encourages innovation by leveling the playing field.
There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be innovative....
There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is, that it will be revealed during the holding period. Perhaps all that will be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea.
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation.
Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head):
1. An application is received for a TLD.
2. The application is made public.
3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing.
4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set.
5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here.
6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above.
8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken.
The TLD has no previous application in process.
An application is received for the TLD.
ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM *To: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the *Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine* would be more on point? :-)
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounce s@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
*Seniority* is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the *Dawn Donut* rule....
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either *use* the mark first, or you file *Intent-to-Use* so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:* Rob Hall *Cc:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.*
*On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.*
*The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.*
*An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.*
*<image004.png>*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall < rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld -wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtl d-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtl d-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg ...
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Kavouss Your view to review the whole process regarding the subject matter is endorsed and it should be performed while keeping the lesson learnt from the last round of new gTLDs. Regards Iftikhar From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:33 AM To: Jay Westerdal; Avri Doria; Jeff Neuman Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Avri Jeff ALL i expressed doubts about FCFS from the very beginning that it was proposed. ICANN does not have any experience on how it would practically works. Other entities outside ICANN system have long experience on how it works and what are the advantages and drawbacks. When I raised the issue I was told that it is yet to be fully discussed and analyzed very carefully and cautiously. It should not give rise to some sort of warehousing in DNS for those who are quicker than others and have more possibilities than others. Providing the opportunity to file every day or every hours a TLD and then continuing the process of objection is inefficient . The entire process should be looked at again. For the time being I am not in favour of such inefficient and damaging process. Avri and JEFF are kindly requested to take necessary actions on this regards Cheers Kavouss 2017-05-18 6:12 GMT+02:00 Jay Westerdal <jay@topspectrum.com<mailto:jay@topspectrum.com>>: A reveal and then allowing for others to copy is not advised. And seriously inviting copying. It should be a secret closed 180 days. If a duplicate is filed in that window it gets grouped as a contention set. On May 17, 2017 8:51 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards. It could just as easily be the other way. Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy innovator is still out raising funds. I would argue that batching encourages innovation by leveling the playing field. There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be innovative.... There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is, that it will be revealed during the holding period. Perhaps all that will be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CFBC.DB6B9DB0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM To: Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation. Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head): 1. An application is received for a TLD. 2. The application is made public. 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing. 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set. 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here. 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above. 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall _______________________________________________ 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 ... _______________________________________________ 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
Kavouss, Avri and I understand your position and that it is shared by others as well. We are going to put together a matrix of all of the proposals we have seen on this list and will try (as best we can) to note proponents and opponents of such proposals. Thanks again. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 12:33 AM To: Jay Westerdal <jay@topspectrum.com>; Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Avri Jeff ALL i expressed doubts about FCFS from the very beginning that it was proposed. ICANN does not have any experience on how it would practically works. Other entities outside ICANN system have long experience on how it works and what are the advantages and drawbacks. When I raised the issue I was told that it is yet to be fully discussed and analyzed very carefully and cautiously. It should not give rise to some sort of warehousing in DNS for those who are quicker than others and have more possibilities than others. Providing the opportunity to file every day or every hours a TLD and then continuing the process of objection is inefficient . The entire process should be looked at again. For the time being I am not in favour of such inefficient and damaging process. Avri and JEFF are kindly requested to take necessary actions on this regards Cheers Kavouss 2017-05-18 6:12 GMT+02:00 Jay Westerdal <jay@topspectrum.com<mailto:jay@topspectrum.com>>: A reveal and then allowing for others to copy is not advised. And seriously inviting copying. It should be a secret closed 180 days. If a duplicate is filed in that window it gets grouped as a contention set. On May 17, 2017 8:51 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards. It could just as easily be the other way. Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy innovator is still out raising funds. I would argue that batching encourages innovation by leveling the playing field. There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be innovative.... There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is, that it will be revealed during the holding period. Perhaps all that will be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CFB2.23B4B760] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM To: Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation. Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head): 1. An application is received for a TLD. 2. The application is made public. 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing. 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set. 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here. 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above. 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall _______________________________________________ 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 ... _______________________________________________ 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
I also agreed with the Greg’ s comments that “innovative use” is independent of the size of the organization and its vary from case to case. Regards Iftikhar From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 8:51 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards. It could just as easily be the other way. Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy innovator is still out raising funds. I would argue that batching encourages innovation by leveling the playing field. There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be innovative.... There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is, that it will be revealed during the holding period. Perhaps all that will be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs? Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CFBC.373EA7A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM To: Rob Hall Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation. Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head): 1. An application is received for a TLD. 2. The application is made public. 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing. 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set. 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here. 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above. 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Greg You are suggesting deliberately creating contention sets. Would allowing that not be a violation of the first applicants intellectual property ? I can tell you that if we allowed that in round one, I would have sat back and watch what others applied for, then said “hey, that’s a great idea” and applied for the ones that were popular. Effectively invalidating the applicants hard work, research and efforts. I could even have just copied all the financials etc. I can’t imagine there would be a lot of support for this type of thing. I can see how you think it would work with categories, but I can’t imagine you would want it to work if there were no categories. With the categories and your suggestion, it allows someone to sit in the weeds and trump an application. With categories and your suggestion, I would just wait until a brand applies, then have my non-profit apply for the same string, and bam, I win. I can imagine that would be a quite profitable venture. And by the way, most contention sets today are resolved by auction, not categorization. All the biggest fights have come from community attempts at categorization. In fact, I think most strings are out and functioning and the ones fighting for categorization are largely the ones held up. I think any attempt to allow applications after the fact, and then award it based on categorization, would not be viewed well by most of the community. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:44 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, No, it's not the term, it's the concept. Also, disagreement is not irritation. Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of my head): 1. An application is received for a TLD. 2. The application is made public. 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the initial filing. 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated as a contention set. 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and priorities will be relevant here. 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6) above. 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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
Is it cost effective for ICANN and the community though? Essentially, ICANN would have to have sufficient evaluators at hand at all times as not to create a bottleneck as all applicants would expect their application to be handled switfly and with the same amount of care as any other. Best, Volker Am 17.05.2017 um 23:40 schrieb Rob Hall:
Greg,
What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.
Here is what I mean when I use it.
The TLD is NOT taken.
The TLD has no previous application in process.
An application is received for the TLD.
ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical.
Rob
*From: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM *To: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.)
As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case.
This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct.
Maybe the /Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine/ would be more on point? :-)
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell*
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.
I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there)
“Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).
*Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.*
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:*Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM *To:*Aikman-Scalese, Anne *Cc:*Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Anne,
_Seniority_is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application.
A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the_Dawn Donut_ rule....
*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either_use_the mark first, or you file_Intent-to-Use_so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.
Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity.
It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <tel:%28520%29%20629-4428>office
520.879.4725 <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:*Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM *To:*Rob Hall *Cc:*Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.
*/At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land./*
*/On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory./*
*/The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight./*
*/An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims./*
*/<image004.png>/*
P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.
*Greg Shatan *C:917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From:*Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> *Date:*Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To:*"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Cc:*Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C:917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <tel:%28520%29%20629-4428>office
520.879.4725 <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] *Sent:*Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:*Jeff Neuman *Cc:*Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan *C:917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E:jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T:+1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M:+1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]*On Behalf Of*Rob Hall *Sent:*Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:*Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From:*Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Date:*Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To:*Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From:*"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To:*'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject:*RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:%28520%29%20629-4428>office 520.879.4725 <tel:%28520%29%20879-4725>fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Christa Taylor *Sent:*Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:*'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall';gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Volker Greimann *Sent:*Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:*Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall<rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>,"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From:<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To:"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From:<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To:"alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin><alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To:"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To:alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>
Cc:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>
Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C:917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E:jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>orjeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T:+1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M:+1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>;gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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>
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 <tel:+49%206894%209396901>
Fax.:+49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 <tel:+49%206894%209396851>
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net/> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu/>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. _______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker, You might recall that one of ICANN’s complaints in the rounds was they had to staff up for a round, and then there was a lull between them. I think having a constant steady state of applications would actually be in ICANN’s best interests for staffing. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:12 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Is it cost effective for ICANN and the community though? Essentially, ICANN would have to have sufficient evaluators at hand at all times as not to create a bottleneck as all applicants would expect their application to be handled switfly and with the same amount of care as any other. Best, Volker Am 17.05.2017 um 23:40 schrieb Rob Hall: Greg, What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation. Here is what I mean when I use it. The TLD is NOT taken. The TLD has no previous application in process. An application is received for the TLD. ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round). If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated. I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant. It would be identical. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com><mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I never said never to FCFS. I said that it could not be called "our goal" now, and that there are significant issues raised by FCFS. Even "roundless" New gTLDs are not necessarily FCFS. (I would be very interested in looking at continuous applications that were not FCFS.) As for Dawn Donut, I was thinking more of the case than the rule (so my bad, there) -- my point was that the plaintiff's status as the first to use, first to file (and only one to file) and trademark registrant did not give it priority over the defendant under the circumstances of the case. This is but one example to show that classifying trademark law (at least in the US, no time for a 170 country survey) as a "first come first served" regime is too simplistic to be correct. Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-) Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-) Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:%28202%29%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:%28202%29%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:%28202%29%20255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name! On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief. I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings. (pros and cons there) “Priority” is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings. I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications. These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide). Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy. That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever. We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries that are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image006.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, Seniority is a bedrock concept of trademark law, but that does not translate to "first come, first served." Application date is only of many competing issues considered with regard to seniority. In some cases, the app date is dispositive; in others, it's not even relevant. T here are so many additional concepts involved that ultimately it's incorrect to say that US TM law is FCFS with regard to filing of a trademark application. A full discussion of this is way out scope for this group. I don't want to start a discussion of the Dawn Donut rule.... Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S? You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list. Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS: an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc. (Of course he or she may sell ads.) But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to apply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.” Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut them down.” This is a system that thwarts creativity. It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive. AND the little guy NEVER wins. You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Use application so as the little guy, you are TOAST. (Your investors know this so they won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.) Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image003.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM To: Rob Hall Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What we have now is not a land rush. FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it. In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on. At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land. On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory. The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot. All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight. An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims. <image004.png> P.S. In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term. In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans. Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West. Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ <image005.png> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428<tel:%28520%29%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725<tel:%28520%29%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann<vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert<alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar†) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “bars†. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic†. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes†: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun†: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun†? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profits†? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds†. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the fly†. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428<tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See,https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible†) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901<tel:+49%206894%209396901> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851<tel:+49%206894%209396851> Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net/> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu/> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thought: * There won’t be ANY application accepted before 2018 or 2019: Rounds or FCFS. The PDP (even if we adopted FCFS) will take that long. * Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of probably around 10,000 applications. * There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy. * ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications * I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date. * However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else. * So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two – and allow contention to happen. It’s fruitful. Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early). But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS. * This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN). * This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process. Thanks, Alexander Please: Delete before you post ALL INDIVIDUALS and send the email ONLY to “gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org” Otherwise the individuals in CC get all emails TWICE! Also please shorten the threat every now and then. The emails get too bulky over time. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:03 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: <tel:(703)%20635-7514> +1.703.635.7514 M: <tel:(202)%20549-5079> +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' < <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' < <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall < <mailto:rob@momentous.com> rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' < <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander
Dear All *I have received the above surprising message which seems GNSO and ICANN advokating contention* *" message **There will be LOT’s of contention**: **And that is good –** it’s competition; and competition drives innovation **and is healthy**.* *Comments**¨* *Not every body expect to live with contention???* *“ That is good “ **It may be good for SOME PEOPLE and not for every body??* *Contention is not a driving for innovation and it is not good nor healthy at all* *.**·* *ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications* *What is the basis for that processing period? where people have got that information?* *At least I can not envisage the conmplexity or otherwise of any of those 10000 strings* *·* *I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time).* *Whom referred as **"WE"* *People may speak for themselves only or for any one supporting them and NOT for others * * So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date.* *it seems an individual now decides for icann**????* *·* *However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else.* *Where this guestimate enmanated from **·* *So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two * *Who has decided so ?* *and allow contention to happen.* *Why ICANN should look for contention * * It’s fruitful.* *What is fruitful? The contention? Or the anarchy? * * Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early)* *Why people persuade others to apply early’to warehouse the srtings?* *To prevent others to have access to DNS? * *To create contention ?.* *But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS* * Funny???**. * *FCFS is not innovation. It is warehousing. * *·* *This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN).* *It is good to dream ??? and talk about 3RD round, 4th round and???’…. * *·* *This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase* *into an ongoing process.* *It seems that people establishes long term strategies for the entire community.It is interesting ???* *Regards* *Kavouss * 2017-05-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>:
Thought:
· There won’t be ANY application accepted before 2018 or 2019: Rounds or FCFS. The PDP (even if we adopted FCFS) will take that long.
· Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of probably around 10,000 applications.
· There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy.
· ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications
· I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date.
· However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else.
· So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two – and allow contention to happen. It’s fruitful. Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early). But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS.
· This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN).
· This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process.
Thanks,
Alexander
Please: Delete before you post ALL INDIVIDUALS and send the email ONLY to “ gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org” Otherwise the individuals in CC get all emails TWICE! Also please shorten the threat every now and then. The emails get too bulky over time.
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:03 PM *To:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Greg,
We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand.
We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again.
Rob.
*From: *Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor < christa@dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com> wrote:
Greg,
I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”.
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman@lrrc.com
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com
*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM *To:* Jeff Neuman *Cc:* Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs.
Greg
*Greg Shatan*C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com
T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Dear Kavouss, as you quote some of my “thoughts” I might answer directly: * The reason why we (this group) have to guestimate the application volume, time ICANN needs to process that volume and next “rounds” (or other mechanisms) is that without any metrics (and being it wild guesses) nobody can plan. Part of the exercise of open exchange in a mailing list like this one is to build an opinion. Obviously it is guesswork – but guesswork is better than no basis for planning at all. The reason why we talk about the application mechanism AFTER the 2nd round is that this is what we are mandated with: finding a procedure how in the future new gTLDs are added to the DNS. That is NOT just tied to the next round. This PDP is NOT a “second round PDP” – and afterwards we start a “third round PDP”. Unless of course we decide to do so. Hence we are discussing what happens AFTER the 2nd round. * Regarding “First Come First Serve” (FCFS) vs. “pooling to allow for competition to happen”: Everybody is free to put forward their opinion on that. The Internet has so far evolved so quickly and in such creative ways because almost EVERY ASPECT about it was shaped by competition. The only area that couldn’t evolve was the DNS – and we strive to end that. Unfortunately each string in the DNS is “unique” – whereas everything else in the Internet can be copied and made better: Social Networks, Ride Share Networks or ISPs for example. If you are allocating a unique resource that can only be allocated ONCE: Then (in my humble opinion) let AT LEAST at the point of allocation competition happen. IF there IS competition within a reasonable frame of time. Hence my proposal to allow for pooling where it doesn’t slow down the process (e.g. because ICANN needs X years to process the 2nd round) – and once we see that pooling doesn’t resolve in competition anymore: switch to an ongoing process. Btw; here an information about the “.com” 2nd level namespace and allocation of names – and what happens to “name spaces” in the “real world”: Everybody knows that all two and three letter .com domains are taken since ages. But there are 456,976 four letter combinations out there – and surely not all of them are registered as .com domain? After all: who desires a domain like xyqv.com? Well: Since 2013 ALL of these 460,000 llll.com are taken! Many not even routed at all. It is a “FIAT CURRENCY” of sorts. Not “demand” drove registrations – it was the other way around: Registrations were done to drive the price! If you deplete a certain resource (here 4 letter .com domains) then that FORCES people to buy for top Dollars at the secondary market. gTLDs are domains, too: At the top level. I would honestly not be utterly surprised if somebody would sweep up at least all “premium letter” “.lll” gTLDs (that would be about 5,800 gTLD strings as there are 18 premium letters). It would be a US $145 Million “investment” if the application fees came down to US $50k. It is quite easy to imagine that these US $145 Million would be recovered SPEEDY in “private contention resolution” procedures directly after the “reveal”: You just need to find 145 companies (and GEOs, etc) who would quietly pay you a Million each in order to avoid delays and auctions, etc. After having sold 145 of your 5,800 strings you start to make profit – and you never have to really rely on earning A DIME with actually “running” any of these gTLDs. Now when you would run the 2nd round in a FCFS style: I can assure you that somebody who shells out THAT money can EASILY create a technical solution to get through their applications ahead of everybody else. Remember the 2005 introduction of .eu domains? People rented servers in the same datacenter where the EURID’s servers were placed – the competition was INSANE. And those were just .eu domains – not GTLDs. Or the “ll.de” introduction in Germany 2010? MAYHAM broke out. Pure insanity – all because FCFS. In short: When you eliminate any and all mechanisms of “pooling” (and the resulting competition afterwards) by using FCFS you run the risk of people snacking up (for example) the important portion of the premium letter “.lll” namespace – then they can sit tight and charge organizations, companies, cities, etc an arm and a leg to buy these string from them. This is just one horror scenario I made up – I am sure others can make up better ones. FCFS invites criminal practices – just study the .eu sunrise and landrush disaster (btw I warned them 6 month upfront – they simply didn’t want to hear it – just didn’t cared). Pooling (at least as long as there is contention) eases the pain and risk A LOT. Thanks for hearing me out, Alexander From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:15 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear All I have received the above surprising message which seems GNSO and ICANN advokating contention " message There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy. Comments¨ Not every body expect to live with contention??? “ That is good “ It may be good for SOME PEOPLE and not for every body?? Contention is not a driving for innovation and it is not good nor healthy at all .· ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications What is the basis for that processing period? where people have got that information? At least I can not envisage the conmplexity or otherwise of any of those 10000 strings · I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). Whom referred as "WE" People may speak for themselves only or for any one supporting them and NOT for others So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date. it seems an individual now decides for icann???? · However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else. Where this guestimate enmanated from · So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two Who has decided so ? and allow contention to happen. Why ICANN should look for contention It’s fruitful. What is fruitful? The contention? Or the anarchy? Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early) Why people persuade others to apply early’to warehouse the srtings? To prevent others to have access to DNS? To create contention ?. But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS Funny???. FCFS is not innovation. It is warehousing. · This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN). It is good to dream ??? and talk about 3RD round, 4th round and???’…. · This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process. It seems that people establishes long term strategies for the entire community.It is interesting ??? Regards Kavouss 2017-05-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> >: Thought: * There won’t be ANY application accepted before 2018 or 2019: Rounds or FCFS. The PDP (even if we adopted FCFS) will take that long. * Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of probably around 10,000 applications. * There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy. * ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications * I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date. * However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else. * So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two – and allow contention to happen. It’s fruitful. Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early). But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS. * This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN). * This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process. Thanks, Alexander Please: Delete before you post ALL INDIVIDUALS and send the email ONLY to “gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> ” Otherwise the individuals in CC get all emails TWICE! Also please shorten the threat every now and then. The emails get too bulky over time. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:03 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428> 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: <tel:(703)%20635-7514> +1.703.635.7514 M: <tel:(202)%20549-5079> +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' < <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' < <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall < <mailto:rob@momentous.com> rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' < <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander _______________________________________________ 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
Apologies: In my example of some “investor entity” trying to snack up the entire “premium .lll gTLD namespace” via FCFS I have misspoken: There are 5,800 premium three letter combinations (out of a total of 17,576 total three letter combinations). I assumed a low application cost of $US 50,000 (I hope the application fees REMAIN at least at the 2012 levels – and are NOT lowered). That sums up to US $290 Million (not to 145 as I have stated). Still: 290 Million USD capital for an entity in an ICANN gTLD round are not impossible as we all know. And if you have 5,800 strings under control you will find 290 entities willing to pay you a Million each relatively easily – or so I assume. Especially as now many brands and GEOs enter the race – and three letter combinations are usually regarded as “generic” enough to not being easily attacked via TM law (if you own .sun or .aig – not easy to object as TM owner). So as crazy as this example might sound: Out of the eyes of investors it makes sense. For everybody else it as a nightmare. Just trying to create awareness for possible scenarios we should look at – especially if we would combine low application fees and FCFS during a time when the market has not been released of (potential) contention – to a degree due to the novelty of the concept of being able to create a gTLD in the first place. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 4:15 PM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear Kavouss, as you quote some of my “thoughts” I might answer directly: * The reason why we (this group) have to guestimate the application volume, time ICANN needs to process that volume and next “rounds” (or other mechanisms) is that without any metrics (and being it wild guesses) nobody can plan. Part of the exercise of open exchange in a mailing list like this one is to build an opinion. Obviously it is guesswork – but guesswork is better than no basis for planning at all. The reason why we talk about the application mechanism AFTER the 2nd round is that this is what we are mandated with: finding a procedure how in the future new gTLDs are added to the DNS. That is NOT just tied to the next round. This PDP is NOT a “second round PDP” – and afterwards we start a “third round PDP”. Unless of course we decide to do so. Hence we are discussing what happens AFTER the 2nd round. * Regarding “First Come First Serve” (FCFS) vs. “pooling to allow for competition to happen”: Everybody is free to put forward their opinion on that. The Internet has so far evolved so quickly and in such creative ways because almost EVERY ASPECT about it was shaped by competition. The only area that couldn’t evolve was the DNS – and we strive to end that. Unfortunately each string in the DNS is “unique” – whereas everything else in the Internet can be copied and made better: Social Networks, Ride Share Networks or ISPs for example. If you are allocating a unique resource that can only be allocated ONCE: Then (in my humble opinion) let AT LEAST at the point of allocation competition happen. IF there IS competition within a reasonable frame of time. Hence my proposal to allow for pooling where it doesn’t slow down the process (e.g. because ICANN needs X years to process the 2nd round) – and once we see that pooling doesn’t resolve in competition anymore: switch to an ongoing process. Btw; here an information about the “.com” 2nd level namespace and allocation of names – and what happens to “name spaces” in the “real world”: Everybody knows that all two and three letter .com domains are taken since ages. But there are 456,976 four letter combinations out there – and surely not all of them are registered as .com domain? After all: who desires a domain like xyqv.com? Well: Since 2013 ALL of these 460,000 llll.com are taken! Many not even routed at all. It is a “FIAT CURRENCY” of sorts. Not “demand” drove registrations – it was the other way around: Registrations were done to drive the price! If you deplete a certain resource (here 4 letter .com domains) then that FORCES people to buy for top Dollars at the secondary market. gTLDs are domains, too: At the top level. I would honestly not be utterly surprised if somebody would sweep up at least all “premium letter” “.lll” gTLDs (that would be about 5,800 gTLD strings as there are 18 premium letters). It would be a US $145 Million “investment” if the application fees came down to US $50k. It is quite easy to imagine that these US $145 Million would be recovered SPEEDY in “private contention resolution” procedures directly after the “reveal”: You just need to find 145 companies (and GEOs, etc) who would quietly pay you a Million each in order to avoid delays and auctions, etc. After having sold 145 of your 5,800 strings you start to make profit – and you never have to really rely on earning A DIME with actually “running” any of these gTLDs. Now when you would run the 2nd round in a FCFS style: I can assure you that somebody who shells out THAT money can EASILY create a technical solution to get through their applications ahead of everybody else. Remember the 2005 introduction of .eu domains? People rented servers in the same datacenter where the EURID’s servers were placed – the competition was INSANE. And those were just .eu domains – not GTLDs. Or the “ll.de” introduction in Germany 2010? MAYHAM broke out. Pure insanity – all because FCFS. In short: When you eliminate any and all mechanisms of “pooling” (and the resulting competition afterwards) by using FCFS you run the risk of people snacking up (for example) the important portion of the premium letter “.lll” namespace – then they can sit tight and charge organizations, companies, cities, etc an arm and a leg to buy these string from them. This is just one horror scenario I made up – I am sure others can make up better ones. FCFS invites criminal practices – just study the .eu sunrise and landrush disaster (btw I warned them 6 month upfront – they simply didn’t want to hear it – just didn’t cared). Pooling (at least as long as there is contention) eases the pain and risk A LOT. Thanks for hearing me out, Alexander From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 12:15 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear All I have received the above surprising message which seems GNSO and ICANN advokating contention " message There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy. Comments¨ Not every body expect to live with contention??? “ That is good “ It may be good for SOME PEOPLE and not for every body?? Contention is not a driving for innovation and it is not good nor healthy at all .· ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications What is the basis for that processing period? where people have got that information? At least I can not envisage the conmplexity or otherwise of any of those 10000 strings · I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). Whom referred as "WE" People may speak for themselves only or for any one supporting them and NOT for others So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date. it seems an individual now decides for icann???? · However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else. Where this guestimate enmanated from · So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two Who has decided so ? and allow contention to happen. Why ICANN should look for contention It’s fruitful. What is fruitful? The contention? Or the anarchy? Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early) Why people persuade others to apply early’to warehouse the srtings? To prevent others to have access to DNS? To create contention ?. But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS Funny???. FCFS is not innovation. It is warehousing. · This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN). It is good to dream ??? and talk about 3RD round, 4th round and???’…. · This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process. It seems that people establishes long term strategies for the entire community.It is interesting ??? Regards Kavouss 2017-05-19 0:43 GMT+02:00 Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> >: Thought: * There won’t be ANY application accepted before 2018 or 2019: Rounds or FCFS. The PDP (even if we adopted FCFS) will take that long. * Whenever it is (likely 2020): There will be pent up demand of probably around 10,000 applications. * There will be LOT’s of contention: And that is good – it’s competition; and competition drives innovation and is healthy. * ICANN will take AT MINIMUM 1 to 2 years to process all these 10,000 applications * I agree with Rob: We should NOT allow for ANYBODY to put in stops between “rounds” (like this time). So AFTER the “reveal” of the applied for strings ICANN shall open up to receive applications for the next round a few month thereafter (without any new PDP) at an ALREADY fixed date. * However: These “round 3” applications cannot be processed for at LEAST one year (probably TWO years) due to ICANN’s workload – so “FCFS” at that stage would only mean “preventing competition” – nothing else. * So ICANN should simply accept new applications for a year or two – and allow contention to happen. It’s fruitful. Once the round closes the strings will be made public. We COULD DISCUSS that those applying early in the 3rd round have an early evaluation (an incentive to apply early). But I see no justification or “public benefit” in eliminating innovation and competition through FCFS. * This mechanism can revolve: Immediately after the closing of the 3rd round the 4th starts: And closes say 6 month later (obviously depending on the workload of ICANN). * This goes on until no contention is observed anymore – upon which we phase into an ongoing process. Thanks, Alexander Please: Delete before you post ALL INDIVIDUALS and send the email ONLY to “gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> ” Otherwise the individuals in CC get all emails TWICE! Also please shorten the threat every now and then. The emails get too bulky over time. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:03 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life. There is demand. We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then start over again. Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >, Christa Taylor <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I think a land rush for TLDs is a terrible idea, and I can't think of any public interest justification for it. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 <tel:(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > wrote: Greg, I think this may create a disadvantage for the first to apply. So a registry gets a great, unique idea and makes an application. Competitors then see that and say “hey I want a piece of that action.” Whether they win or sell their rights at private auction, it just makes developing a unique idea more expensive. I think that, in itself, is a type of “gaming”. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> ] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM To: Jeff Neuman Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I would suggest that TLDs should not be sold on a true FCFS basis -- TLDs are simply too valuable and unique. We don't need to have "rounds" in order to have all of the various protections (RPMs, Objections, GAC advice, etc.) remain -- we simply need to hold each application for evaluation and for the creation of contention sets if others want to join in and apply for the string. In essence, each string becomes a "round" -- disaggregated from every other application but going through the same process as applications currently do. This eliminates the pent up demand problem, without succumbing to a "wild west" approach to TLDs. Greg Greg Shatan C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428> 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: <tel:(703)%20635-7514> +1.703.635.7514 M: <tel:(202)%20549-5079> +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' < <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' < <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>; <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg < <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall < <mailto:rob@momentous.com> rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" < <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' < <mailto:christa@dottba.com> christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' < <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> vgreimann@key-systems.net>, " <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual association†. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 <tel:(520)%20629-4428> office 520.879.4725 <tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Served†. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology†. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander _______________________________________________ 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
Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
Jorge, The APPLICATION is treated on a FCFS basis. BUT, it MUST still go through all the evaluation that we already have. Ie: someone can still make a claim that it infringes their rights. And we did just go through a round where those that applied got the TLD’s and those that were slower, didn’t apply, and didn’t get it. Rob From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:39 AM To: "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "AAikman@lrrc.com" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "christa@dottba.com" <christa@dottba.com>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net" <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEEB.0A2B6C20] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Anne, The AGB does have time limits as to how long you can wait to execute contracts with ICANN, for example. I would support taking another look at those to ensure they can’t be sat on forever. I believe some applications in the current round have timed out or been abandon’ed because of this time period. I agree that allowing someone to apply for a TLD, and then do nothing with it forever, is a bad idea. I think we need to keep in mind that these are APPLICATIONS we are dealing with, not actual live TLD’s. Rob. From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 AM To: "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com" <christa@dottba.com>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net" <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CF05.CCE12920] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
We would have to restrict the ability of a party to delay signature and be clear that when a party applies, thhe conditions at the time of application will apply. If they do not sign within a month of the end of the round, they forfeit. Sounds reasonable enough. If someone wants to have changes to the contract, they need to negotiate these either post-signature or pre round start. Volker Am 17.05.2017 um 18:04 schrieb Rob Hall:
Anne,
The AGB does have time limits as to how long you can wait to execute contracts with ICANN, for example.
I would support taking another look at those to ensure they can’t be sat on forever. I believe some applications in the current round have timed out or been abandon’ed because of this time period.
I agree that allowing someone to apply for a TLD, and then do nothing with it forever, is a bad idea.
I think we need to keep in mind that these are APPLICATIONS we are dealing with, not actual live TLD’s.
Rob.
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 AM *To: *"'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com" <christa@dottba.com>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net" <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Jorge,
I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising.
At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN.
I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”.
What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD?
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM *To:* jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Dear all
I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker?
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Jeff Neuman *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 *An:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>
Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Volker, I don’t think you mean those time frames. Perhaps you mean within a month from when ICANN is ready to delegate ? There is no way we get through the evaluation process and objection process within a month after a round or application is filled. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com" <christa@dottba.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC We would have to restrict the ability of a party to delay signature and be clear that when a party applies, thhe conditions at the time of application will apply. If they do not sign within a month of the end of the round, they forfeit. Sounds reasonable enough. If someone wants to have changes to the contract, they need to negotiate these either post-signature or pre round start. Volker Am 17.05.2017 um 18:04 schrieb Rob Hall: Anne, The AGB does have time limits as to how long you can wait to execute contracts with ICANN, for example. I would support taking another look at those to ensure they can’t be sat on forever. I believe some applications in the current round have timed out or been abandon’ed because of this time period. I agree that allowing someone to apply for a TLD, and then do nothing with it forever, is a bad idea. I think we need to keep in mind that these are APPLICATIONS we are dealing with, not actual live TLD’s. Rob. From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com><mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 AM To: "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'"<mailto:'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch><mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com"<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com><mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com"<mailto:christa@dottba.com> <christa@dottba.com><mailto:christa@dottba.com>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net"<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CF07.2E638340] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>; vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Of course, I was providing these as examples, shotting from the hip so to speak. These will have to be refined and put into a realistic frame of reference. Am 17.05.2017 um 18:14 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
I don’t think you mean those time frames.
Perhaps you mean within a month from when ICANN is ready to delegate ?
There is no way we get through the evaluation process and objection process within a month after a round or application is filled.
Rob
*From: *Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com" <christa@dottba.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
We would have to restrict the ability of a party to delay signature and be clear that when a party applies, thhe conditions at the time of application will apply. If they do not sign within a month of the end of the round, they forfeit.
Sounds reasonable enough.
If someone wants to have changes to the contract, they need to negotiate these either post-signature or pre round start.
Volker
Am 17.05.2017 um 18:04 schrieb Rob Hall:
Anne,
The AGB does have time limits as to how long you can wait to execute contracts with ICANN, for example.
I would support taking another look at those to ensure they can’t be sat on forever. I believe some applications in the current round have timed out or been abandon’ed because of this time period.
I agree that allowing someone to apply for a TLD, and then do nothing with it forever, is a bad idea.
I think we need to keep in mind that these are APPLICATIONS we are dealing with, not actual live TLD’s.
Rob.
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 AM *To: *"'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <mailto:%27Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch%27> <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com" <mailto:christa@dottba.com> <christa@dottba.com> <mailto:christa@dottba.com>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net" <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Jorge,
I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising.
At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN.
I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”.
What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD?
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>
_____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:*Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch <mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM *To:* jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>; vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Dear all
I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker?
Kind regards
Jorge
*Von:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Jeff Neuman *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 *An:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>
Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com>/
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
In any FCFS process, you have to have “Launch it or Lose It”. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CEED.D1C84620] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:05 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, The AGB does have time limits as to how long you can wait to execute contracts with ICANN, for example. I would support taking another look at those to ensure they can’t be sat on forever. I believe some applications in the current round have timed out or been abandon’ed because of this time period. I agree that allowing someone to apply for a TLD, and then do nothing with it forever, is a bad idea. I think we need to keep in mind that these are APPLICATIONS we are dealing with, not actual live TLD’s. Rob. From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 AM To: "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>" <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>" <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image004.png@01D2CEED.D19639A0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>; vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Anne, Yes. Exactly the same as in a round. There is no different to the rules and process for FCFS or Round at all. They all follow exactly the same path. We are simply eliminating the contention issue, which requires us to have a round in the first place. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:13 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "christa@dottba.com" <christa@dottba.com>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net" <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC In any FCFS process, you have to have “Launch it or Lose It”. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CF07.51861C70] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:05 AM To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Anne, The AGB does have time limits as to how long you can wait to execute contracts with ICANN, for example. I would support taking another look at those to ensure they can’t be sat on forever. I believe some applications in the current round have timed out or been abandon’ed because of this time period. I agree that allowing someone to apply for a TLD, and then do nothing with it forever, is a bad idea. I think we need to keep in mind that these are APPLICATIONS we are dealing with, not actual live TLD’s. Rob. From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 AM To: "'Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch'" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>, "jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>" <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, "christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>" <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, "vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>" <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D2CF07.51861C70] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>; vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Dear Anne, I found the land-rush analogy quite interesting (as put forward by Greg). With the important caveat that (we may say) there are already people scattered on the lands subject to the land rush – and they should have a fair say during the process, which implies that a FCFS does not work. A string may sometimes be only one possible combination of meanings which may not affect anyone – but it may also have a lot of significance to a certain people, community etc. – we should not put them in a situation where they have to continuously monitor applications and (if they are made aware of the application) use costly objection procedures… After all the policy is there to serve the global public interest – and I don’t think you can boil that down to a FCFS system… Regards Jorge Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 17:53 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CFB4.069AB1F0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>; vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
I too second the land-rush analogy since objective of any policy is to serve the global public interest. _______________________________ Shreema Sarkar Dua Associates Advocates & Solicitors 202-206, Tolstoy House, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001, India Tel: +91 11 2371 4408│ Fax: +91 11 2331 7746 │Mobile: +91 9811007439 │e-mail: <mailto:shreema@duaassociates.com> shreema@duaassociates.com This e-mail is confidential, privileged and for the addressee only. Unintended recipients are kindly requested to destroy this mail and any attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message not relating to the official business of this Firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch Sent: 18 May 2017 12:22 To: AAikman@lrrc.com; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear Anne, I found the land-rush analogy quite interesting (as put forward by Greg). With the important caveat that (we may say) there are already people scattered on the lands subject to the land rush – and they should have a fair say during the process, which implies that a FCFS does not work. A string may sometimes be only one possible combination of meanings which may not affect anyone – but it may also have a lot of significance to a certain people, community etc. – we should not put them in a situation where they have to continuously monitor applications and (if they are made aware of the application) use costly objection procedures… After all the policy is there to serve the global public interest – and I don’t think you can boil that down to a FCFS system… Regards Jorge Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 17:53 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Jorge, I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising. At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN. I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you “Launch it or Lose It”. What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point of the award of the TLD? Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com From: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM To: jeff.neuman@comlaude.com; rob@momentous.com; alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa@dottba.com; vgreimann@key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Dear all I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just because someone is quicker? Kind regards Jorge Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57 An: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com _____________________________ ] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ) . It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _____ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _____ 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.
Jeff, I really like this idea as it would solve many of the concerns. Am 17.05.2017 um 04:56 schrieb Jeff Neuman:
Rob,
To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc.
2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)).
Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider.
Thanks!
*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA***| *Com Laude USA*
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw
*From:*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string.
I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for.
The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear.
As an example, would we need categories ?
Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply.
But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused.
Rob
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM *To: *Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,
To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.
I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.
When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob
*From: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:
1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€.
(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.
3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply.
4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).
Anne
*Anne E. Aikman-Scalese *Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ ] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Christa Taylor *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM *To:* 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another.
Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
Cheers,
Christa
*From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM *To:* Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high.
It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first".
OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm.
Best,
Volker
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
Sigh.
My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD.
Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible.
Rob
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> <mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,
Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.
We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net> <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>>
Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
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
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:
www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>
Web:www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>
www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu>
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Thoughts: Rob is right when he insists that there should be “no break” between “rounds” – as someone would use that to stop the process (as we see now: 1 year projected becomes 8 years in reality). However: I do not agree with Rob’s assessment that the creation of “demand” is anything bad: It’s called “competition” and last time I checked at least in the U.S. “competition” was regarded as smth positive that helps driving innovation. Say we receive 10,000 applications this round – ICANN will be clocked up for at minimum 2 years (and that is optimistic). I agree with ROB that there should be a given 3rd round start-date VERY SOON after the conclusion of the 1st round application window. HOWEVER: 1. Such date has to be AFTER the application roster has been published obviously! 2. ICANN won’t be able to process ANY new applications for AT MINIMUM one year! 3. So why not simply open the new process after the application roster has been published (e.g. after 3 month) but KEEP IT OPEN for say another 9 month? So people may apply at any time, the round is in motion, there is no way back for ICANN, but competition can still happen! To open some FCFS directly after the 2nd round window is closed seemingly doesn’t make any sense AND stops competition – all the while ICANN will never be able to deal with these applications anyway! This system could go on (revolving windows with short stop gaps to see what strings have been applied for) until there are no contention sets / the application load is low enough that ICANN could actually process these applications immediately (as there is no backlog). The stop gaps and windows would of course become shorter over time. Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:26 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Jeff, I really like this idea as it would solve many of the concerns. Am 17.05.2017 um 04:56 schrieb Jeff Neuman: Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> jeff.neuman@valideus.com or <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <mailto:christa@dottba.com> <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> >, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com <mailto:christa@dottba.com> >, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> >, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com <mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <mailto:rob@momentous.com> <rob@momentous.com>, <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> <vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> "alexander@schubert.berlin" <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " < alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _____ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770 <mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770> > X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net <http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.RRPproxy.net> www.domaindiscount24.com <http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems <http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems <http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu <http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Jeff, One small clarification. The FCFS phase MUST begin immediately after the round 2. There can’t be any time between the two. If there is, you will create a situation where there is again pent up demand. One has to flow into the other or you will have a race condition that we are trying to avoid. You would not need a wait list service. You could allow a second application if you wanted to, that would only be processed if the first failed. Ie: its not like a SLD where there is a check command that says taken. Anyone could apply for anything. But the date of application takes priority. Think of it like the trademark or patent offices now. Whoever gets there first has the priority application. Rob From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:7.1.0.9.2.20170516222417.0a6732c8@mcgill.ca.1] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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
Jeff, Not sure quarterly posting would do it when you consider objection deadlines. Maybe monthly. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEE7.A1BB2750] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 7:57 PM To: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Christa Taylor'; 'Volker Greimann'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Anne, The time period to file an objection in my example, would not begin until it was posted. In other words, if we decided that period was 90 days, it would be 90 days after the application is posted. So, I think whether it is monthly or quarterly, that wouldn’t change. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:29 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>; Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Jeff, Not sure quarterly posting would do it when you consider objection deadlines. Maybe monthly. Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image001.png@01D2CF5E.D7EDD850] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 7:57 PM To: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Christa Taylor'; 'Volker Greimann'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well: 1. ICANN conducts a “round 2” which deals with the pent up demand. We would have to work out contention resolution rules and whether priority is offered to any category, etc. 2. After some up-front stated time period (which we would need to provide advice on). ICANN opens up permanents to receive TLD applications and processes/evaluates and awards TLDs on a First-come, First-served basis. However, to ease the tracking problem that would come if applications were posted every day, ICANN would commit to posting all of its proposals Quarterly (for example) so that anyone that wanted to file objections, public comments, etc. would have to only check 4X per year (as an example). This would eliminate all contention resolution, unless of course the application is unsuccessful (in which case someone will develop a wait list service for TLDs ;)). Other than that last part, do I have that right? If so, it presents an interesting combination of a few proposals we have on the table and a new option for the group to consider. Thanks! Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
I don’t see any way around “categories” when you consider Community applications and .brand applications. Evaluation is different for these categories. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image003.png@01D2CEE7.6EEA9400] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 7:33 PM To: Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; 'Christa Taylor'; 'Volker Greimann'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this current string. I don’t think anyone on this string has advocated FCFS as an initial solution. I wanted to be clear that FCFS only was NOT what I was suggesting or advocating for. The more I think about it, the more I actually think that if we were to concentrate on what a FCFS world would look like (post contention round) that a lot of the policy would become much simpler and more clear. As an example, would we need categories ? Perhaps for what was in or out of the contract. Ie: It becomes just a means of a checkbox as to which one you are so we know what contract terms apply. But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be needed at all in a FCFS world. So then the question becomes are they really relevant during what I will call the “Contention landrush period”, or perhaps “Contention Sunrise”. Because that seems to be where most of the debate is focused. Rob From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round". Alan At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Anne, To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off. It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends. So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS. I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored. The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don’t believe it will really be an issue. However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track. When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model. Rob From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa@dottba.com<mailto:christa@dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC What about a hybrid approach? FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years. There is “pent-up†demand. It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources. Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way: 1. We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique. It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary. Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it outâ€? Why not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the GAC now ? All Objection processes should apply. PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationâ€. (Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds. No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs. Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for a geo name? Is there any way to work this out now? ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board. And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window? Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old version of AGB?) 2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why? Because it’s all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off. (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.) Objection procedures still apply – e.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc. Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention. After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any. 3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and all objection procedures apply. 4. Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcome - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections). Anne Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ []] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 700 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Christa Taylor Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Lots of different perspectives so thought I’d add another. Appears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system. Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach. How do we prevent gaming? For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards? I’m not saying that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought. Cheers, Christa From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC If conditions remain the same, then yes, you would probably experience the rush in the round part, not in the FCFS part down the road. But this does not resolve the issue of various parties having to continue to watch over the applications that come in over time. Instead of claims notices you'd have to have "application notice services" to protect affected parties from applications that affect them directly from slipping through unnoticed. And even then the risk of missing an application someone might have a legitimate objection too is very high. It also rewards the fast over the thorough. Say two potential applicants have the same idea for a string at the same time. One writes up a quick application and fires it off while the other takes care that the application fits the community it is designed to serve, but alas as that takes a day longer, that applicant misses out as the other "came first". OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits. Maybe FCFS is the best of all worlds after all, but we at least should consider the risks and dangers and ensure that whatever we end up with cannot be gamed for public harm. Best, Volker Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall: Sigh. My point Volker is that others did it as well, and it perfectly handled pent up demand. This is clearly not just about one TLD. Are you really suggesting that if we did a round, say 3-4 months of open applications, followed by FCFS for any string not applied in that round, that you think there would be a rush in the first day ? I fail to comprehend how that is possible. Rob From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com><mailto:rob@momentous.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it? Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall: Volker, Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first. Many TLD’s had a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush. We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS. Not any. There was no point. You could have applied yesterday just as today. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days. Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most. Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision. That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> <alexander@schubert.berlin><mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competitionâ€? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a “round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in “about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one “launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Reply-To: " alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>" < alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based†term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to “barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sunâ€? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities†or “non-profitsâ€? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants –“ and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%28703%29%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%28202%29%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that _______________________________________________ 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 -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.rrpproxy.net/> www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.brandshelter.com/> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems> www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. ________________________________ 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. Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Description: image001.png Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497; creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"; modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT" Content-ID: <image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770<mailto:image001.png@01D2CE90.2CAEC770>> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Rob, OK, I then misunderstood you: I see that you support to have at least ONE more “round”. Good. I agree. As to the “length” of that round: We need to distinguish between the “application window” and the period between release of the final application guidebook and the closing of the window. The application window could be 1 week – or even just 24h. Doesn’t really matter. But there needs to be enough time in the run up so Non-ICANN-Insiders can prepare! So indeed: Why not accepting applications during the entire run up period? But we need to distinguish between the need to provide enough time to actually submit an application (an arguably 60 minutes would be enough) and to prepare the application (which is rather a matter of MANY month for many). And yes: In theory we could open the floodgates thereafter. Just why not open these for 1 week every 6 month or so – until there is no contention anymore? They key is predictability – a FIXED schedule. And not “ahh, lets finish the round and then analyze, then do a new PDP, then a decade later we let new applications in”. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:05 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alex I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology. That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space. Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD’s. If we had a round of 3 months, where anyone could apply, and then it just became first come first serve after that, you would have no rush. No technology would help. There would be no mad rush at the end of the round. There would be no point to it. People would apply for the TLD they wanted when they wanted to. Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Rob, I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access” and “competition”? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “round” or an “ongoing process” – the number of applications won’t change. If you have no “round” – what is it then? The only other thing than a “round” is “First Comes First Served”. That’s a competition KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technology”. Why would we ELIMINATE competition? There is no way around having a “round” once we are ready to accept applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough). But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise” of a next round in “about a year” – we should ALREADY set the date for the next application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s capacities will not allow for it. Also the next window dates should be FIXED. So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism” with one “launch date” – just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To allow for competition to happen. Thanks, Alexander From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob@momentous.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> ; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Alexander, There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to enact that delay. The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing. If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open applications we are destined to repeat ourselves. The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open applications. We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the start in order to deal with contentions. Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications. Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just allow open applications. I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted categories for a problem we created. Rob From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi, I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob. Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term. Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them. And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down. So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right? As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule! Thanks, Alexander From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> >; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs. Alan At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote: Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> >, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com <mailto:rob@momentous.com> > wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton < martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> > Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> > wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 <tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> >; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
Hi Alexander Well I admit that almost any criteria can be “gamed” - still it offers an opportunity for local regional TLDs to get their TLDs without having to pay large sums to win an auction against a brand or a portfolio applicant for instance - and thus IMHO helps promote diversity. Should a branded .SUN have priority over an open for profit .SUN? In my view the need for additional open TLDs (maybe a part from IDNs) is very limited, so I can live with such a scenario, in order to provide TM owners large or small (you would still ned a lot of money to apply for and operate a TLD so not any small TM owner could participate) to protect their brand (and thereby also their consumers) by having their own .Brand TLD (and maybe not having to defend their TM and consumers from fraud/false affiliation amongst yet more open TLDs. As to rounds - I suggested in my public comments that a window must open every two years (based on existing policies until new policy is developed) until the community decides to simply open up for applications. Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 15:31, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
Hi Jannik, I am in full agreement that the protection of "Global Well Known Brands" such as "Porsche", "Nike" or "DISNEY" is in some way potentially beneficial to the Internet User. Especially if NOT based on a generic keyword term. But if a the brand is based on a generic term and NOT "Globally Well Known" - why does it deserve special protection in the DNS? Do a search in a few TM databases (e.g. USA, Germany, Brazil) - you find a TM for almost EVERY generic term. So we would need to develop a clear (and easy to implement) threshold for "Well Globally Known Brand" - one that can't be games easily (so it needs a cutoff date, a number of countries with registered TMs, etc). Thanks, Alexander -----Original Message----- From: Jannik Skou [mailto:js@thomsentrampedach.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:53 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Alexander Well I admit that almost any criteria can be “gamed” - still it offers an opportunity for local regional TLDs to get their TLDs without having to pay large sums to win an auction against a brand or a portfolio applicant for instance - and thus IMHO helps promote diversity. Should a branded .SUN have priority over an open for profit .SUN? In my view the need for additional open TLDs (maybe a part from IDNs) is very limited, so I can live with such a scenario, in order to provide TM owners large or small (you would still ned a lot of money to apply for and operate a TLD so not any small TM owner could participate) to protect their brand (and thereby also their consumers) by having their own .Brand TLD (and maybe not having to defend their TM and consumers from fraud/false affiliation amongst yet more open TLDs. As to rounds - I suggested in my public comments that a window must open every two years (based on existing policies until new policy is developed) until the community decides to simply open up for applications. Kind regards | Mit freundlichem Gruss, Jannik Skou, MBA Partner Thomsen Trampedach GmbH Grundstrasse 22a 6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland T +45.22275696 M js@thomsentrampedach.com W http://thomsentrampedach.com
On 16 May 2017, at 15:31, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking” certain categories – and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword based” term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think “.bar”) – obtain the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked. They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… market to “bars”. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand” in regard to the DNS. At minimum the “brand” had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number) countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be “generic”. If you are basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great. Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody else – and see whether there is contention. In the real life “generic term based Brand protection” works because you can exempt the term’s natural meaning from being protected – in the DNS there are no “Trademark Goods and Services Classes”: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be targeted, too! If you have a brand “sun”: GREAT! Just do not tell us no one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun” – but you. You haven’t protected “SUN” from being used – just for computers, or newspapers. Who knows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname “sun”? Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities” or “non-profits”? NOT if their application is based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN would get sued up and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once the applications are all in: we might “side-track” GEOs or Brands IF there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows” (rounds) to “an ongoing process: I like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years, annually or bi-annual “rounds”. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in between like now. Most of the “adjustment” to the Guidebook is due now (between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and smaller “adjustments” – they could be added “on the fly”. I guess the 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2 years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future applicants – and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories†is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... ).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
I have to agree with Kurt and Rob on this topic. If we want to see a simple and efficient process, one which is equitable and allows Registry Operators flexibility to change and develop over time, then the concept of categories should be avoided. I have no issue with exploring or dealing with a difficult issue if there is a compelling reason for doing so. At this time I haven’t heard a compelling reason. Regards, Raymond Zylstra<https://au.linkedin.com/in/raymondzylstra> Neustar Inc. / Director - Policy and Compliance Level 8, 10 Queens Road, Melbourne, Australia VIC 3004 Office +61 3 9866 3710 Mobile +61 416 177 615 / Raymond.Zylstra@neustar.biz<mailto:Raymond.Zylstra@neustar.biz> / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/> Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar> Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary. ________________________________ The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Hall Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2017 11:58 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Greg, Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can apply for a gTLD at any time ? I believe this entire artificial “in rounds” that we are doing now is what is causing most of the issues. I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for “Categories” is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of another. By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the contention and issues. As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good idea. Can someone fill me in ? Rob. From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM To: Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC I don't think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs. anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....) There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least. There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them, rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them. Greg Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob@momentous.com<mailto:rob@momentous.com>> wrote: I honestly can’t see the purpose of categories. If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time. The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ? Rob. From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC That would be helpful. I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular category, especially where the operating model is very different to the traditional selling /distribution to third parties. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079> @Jintlaw From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1mA-5FhTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA_edit-23gid-3D1186181551&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=L6XzNDjB15xGUlfPZC9VVmaqkyPt9_m1qgaRvx-c7SE&e=>). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184<tel:(310)%20400-4184> Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1mA-5FhTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA_edit-23gid-3D1186181551&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=L6XzNDjB15xGUlfPZC9VVmaqkyPt9_m1qgaRvx-c7SE&e=>) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-2017-03-22-en<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_cc2-2Dnew-2Dgtld-2Dsubsequent-2Dprocedures-2D2017-2D03-2D22-2Den&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=20XjSXSIVxcqlv5ryg1ObB-NJ0X0uTzVkZIqtsd60eA&e=> 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<tel:(310)%20339-4410> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<tel:(310)%20301-5800> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<tel:(310)%20823-8649> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gns...>. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNSO&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=OCA5UExfuux_hOWQlJwXYOgOG3Bv1Rpmods-Pc6EM9s&e=> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanngnso_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=agFbtFYJpz1h2QlCMNDStVN3aUmbwyn-E4H4GsW0Dgk&e=> http://gnso.icann.org/en/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=93p9GYTkxFXNfTjgo6GJ8I5r79Fhhs62AZaEPscSrB0&e=> _______________________________________________ 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=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=vN6K2dgnxwQ82xoL9QNmPXtKq4fUQOtGqTEfNygsrAU&e=> _______________________________________________ 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=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=vN6K2dgnxwQ82xoL9QNmPXtKq4fUQOtGqTEfNygsrAU&e=> _______________________________________________ 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=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=5elP5O0fc45pWCbpRPsBewA8FWsRI5YaHYFl33Mh1yA&m=vVp1JVpdzNoQhfeckywo5QPjbN44ClLaKzgWPKVZF8M&s=vN6K2dgnxwQ82xoL9QNmPXtKq4fUQOtGqTEfNygsrAU&e=>
Hi Jeff: I’ve pasted the earlier email below. Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2016 1:55 PM To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] The Case for a Single Registry Agreement Hi Everyone: During past meetings of this group, we raised the possibility of creating new categories of TLD registries and separate versions of registry agreements for the next round. The primary purpose of the categories, as I understand it, is to obtain exemptions, concessions or accommodations to the registry agreement so that the TLD registries in a category can more easily / effectively / economically pursue its mission. I believe that exemptions from certain terms in the registry agreement, when appropriately and swiftly granted, will encourage innovative uses for TLD registries. While I fully support the position that TLD registries should be able to obtain exemptions from certain Registry Agreement terms based on their business model, I do not support the creation of TLD categories or different versions of the Registry Agreement a priori. The reasons for this are that: (1) categories are generally unworkable, (2) there is a more elegant way to achieve the goals of registries seeking a Registry Agreement matched to their needs, and (3) it will be faster from a policy and implementation standpoint to avoid considering many requested category suggestions. The difficulties with implementing different categories can be demonstrated by looking at past and future gTLD rounds. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. There were ten applicants. The evaluation panel found only two of them qualified under the sponsorship criteria as applicants tried to “shoe-horn” their applications into the definition of “sponsored.” We could expect the same behavior in future applications once a category definition is created. The two most notable failures in this current (2012) round of TLD delegations were the two categories described by the Applicant Guidebook: Community Priority Evaluations and the attempt to measure the requisite government approvals for geographic names. Subjective criteria used in the Community Priority Evaluations did not yield repeatable results and even the objective criteria used for geographical names yielded errors and controversies. Suggested new categories already portend a confusing landscape. Community comment in the 2012 round suggested the creation of several TLD categories, for example: single-owner, country, not-for-profit, intergovernmental organization, socio-cultural, community and open. Depending on the category, various accommodations were suggested, for example, relief from: the requirement to sign an ICANN Registry Agreement, to use accredited registrars, pay ICANN fees or to follow consensus policy, or to follow instead the policy provisions outlined in the GAC’s ccTLD principles. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application, administration and evaluation process, in addition to a very complicated contractual compliance environment. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Nonetheless, fair and appropriately flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. An exemption process can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. The Registry Agreement was written largely to satisfy the policy goals of the new gTLD program. It is more straightforward to evaluate a registry requesting an accommodation against the policy goals of the agreement and grant the accommodation so long as the policies are not violated. For example, there is a policy that, “Strings must not cause any technical instability.” A simple implementation of this policy is the data escrow requirement (with Iron Mountain and NCC Group as the lone providers) to ensure ongoing operation in case of failure. It is conceivable that a different version of .bank might have emerged with a demonstrably valuable promise that data would not leave the confines of the .bank operator, which had demonstrated diversity and security capability beyond that of the escrow providers. In that case, the policy to enhance stability would be better served by granting an exemption for the data escrow requirement to the new .bank. The new .bank should not be required to form a category in order to gain an exemption. The working group can call for the creation of a process that considers forgiving certain contractual provisions whenever such a request promotes the goals of the new gTLD program and does not obviate the policy reason for the contractual clause in question. This is not so different from a smoothly running Registry Services Evaluation Procedure (RSEP). For example, when asked for an exemption, ICANN should require demonstrable evidence that: • The exemption will further a goal of the new gTLD program (such as innovation or increased competition or choice). • The exemption does not defeat the policy goal of the contractual provision. • Stating the policy goal of the provision • Demonstrating why the exemption does not defeat the policy goal • In line with the RSEP, demonstrating no deleterious effects to stability, security, resiliency and competition. Similar to RSEP, this process should occur within a 15-day window. Just as in the RSEP, there will be similarity among applications that will become easy to administer. While it sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become, never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. The outcome of our policy discussion could result in a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. The alternative will be an ongoing attempt to create policy and implementation plans for new categories as they are conceived. This is not to say that TLD categories should be forbidden. Categories can self-form and create guiding principles, internal policies or other membership criteria. However, rather than painstakingly create policy governing the formation of specific categories and registry agreements, the group could call for an overarching process to accommodate and facilitate new business models as they develop. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider this. Sincerely, Kurt
On May 15, 2017, at 2:17 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It may help our discussions later today. <>
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>).
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements.
While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories.
I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again.
Best regards,
Kurt
________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com <mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA... <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...>) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201...> 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB
If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>.
Best, Steve
Steven Chan > Sr. Policy Manager > >
ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > steve.chan@icann.org <mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg>
Agreeing with Kurt, I followed several community application and it looked less than adequate. Majority spent $$$ to prove they have community support and this had no use and they spent again $$$ in auctions. Trademarks is even more complicate with country based system by WIPO and new trademarks becoming very known within internet out of the WIPO process; so many difficulties to establish a process that will bring confidence to the applicant. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of KURT PRITZ <kurt@kjpritz.com> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 7:34 AM To: Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC Hi Everyone: In reading the agenda for today’s meeting, I read the spreadsheet describing the different TLD types. (See, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...). It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010 or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossible”) to implement. Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation. Categories of TLDs have always been problematic. The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated upon satisfying criteria associated with categories. In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic: look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This wasn’t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other ’no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to evaluating community applications. The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts to create policy for new categories as they are conceived. For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the creation of categories should be avoided. Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that remains flexible and can adapt to new business models as they are developed. An exemption process to certain contractual conditions can be created to encourage innovation while ensuring all policy goals embodied in the RA are met. Fair and flexible agreements can be written without the need, time and complexity of the creation of additional categories or separate agreements. While an exemption process sounds complex, it is not compared to the nightmare that the new gTLD process will become: never adequately administering to an ever-increasing number of categories. I wrote in more depth about this ~ 6 months ago - and would be happy to flesh out my thoughts on this again. Best regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com<mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com> +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz On May 15, 2017, at 3:43 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> wrote: Dear WG Members, Apologies for the late delivery. Below, please find the proposed agenda for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG meeting scheduled for Monday, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 1) Welcome/SOIs 2) Work Track Updates 3) GDD Summit Recap 4) Drafting Team Update – Different TLD Types (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJA...) 5) Community Comment 2 (CC2) Update – Public Comment available here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-201... 6) ICANN59 Planning 7) AOB If you need a dial-out or want to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Best, Steve Steven Chan Sr. Policy Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org> mobile: +1.310.339.4410 office tel: +1.310.301.5800 office fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> 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/ _______________________________________________ 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 (29)
-
Aikman-Scalese, Anne -
Alan Greenberg -
Alexander Schubert -
Christa Taylor -
Edmon Chung -
Greg Shatan -
Iftikhar Hussain Shah -
Jannik Skou -
Jay Westerdal -
Jean Guillon -
Jeff Neuman -
Jon Nevett -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Karen Day -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Kavouss Arasteh -
kjb＠bernsteinip.com -
Kurt Pritz -
Martin Sutton -
Michael Flemming -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Phil Corwin -
Rob Hall -
Rubens Kuhl -
Shreema Sarkar -
Steve Chan -
Vanda Scartezini -
Volker Greimann -
Zylstra, Raymond