Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary
Christopher is right.You can squatt on Trademarks. Company names. Political Slogans. City-names. Religions. Parties. Even Presidents.You can cybersquatt on domains, twitter handles, gTLDs or Facebook group names.Cybersquatting is "taking ownership" of a digital identifier in order to either harm others or force them into a buyout. AlexanderSent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Date: 11/26/19 11:06 (GMT-05:00) To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary Marc Trachtenberg:Limiting cybersquatting to trademarks is a peculiarly US consideration. I regard ANY accumulation by a Registry of whatever strings for speculative purposes as cybersquatting - or if you prefer it - by any other name.Regarding innovation, I consider that a gTLD Registry is providing a public service to Registrars and Registrants. CWOn 26 Nov 2019, at 16:55, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote:Christopher, Can you please clarify your comment below as I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you arguing that we should not try to enable innovation at the gTLD level and that innovation can only occur at the second (or third) level? With respect to cybersquatting, that occurs when someone registers a domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from another’s trademark. As so many of you have pointed out, no one has any rights to a generic or nonsense term that is not used as an indicator of source (i.e., a trademark). So what cybersquatting are you referring to? Best regards, Marc H. TrachtenbergShareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305trac@gtlaw.com | www.gtlaw.com <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.euSent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:14 AMTo: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.orgSubject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, I do not accept the ’innovation' argument at the gTLD level. The main argument for innovation and intelligence on the Internet has been that it takes place at the periphery. Indeed it does. In this context that means innovation by the Registrant. As I have said before, the economic rent of a good name should accrue to the Registrant (which is also why I oppose premium pricing.) The principal issue here is not innovation, It is speculation. From cybersquatting the dictionary at the second level, we would be moving towards legitimatising cybersquatting the Gazetteers at the top level. No. CW On 25 Nov 2019, at 16:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote: All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal:Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve?From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.”From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.”From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings.Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the ProposalKristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business
But can you squat on generic terms or nonsense strings that have no meaning? Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> [Greenberg Traurig] From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10:34 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary *EXTERNAL TO GT* Christopher is right. You can squatt on Trademarks. Company names. Political Slogans. City-names. Religions. Parties. Even Presidents. You can cybersquatt on domains, twitter handles, gTLDs or Facebook group names. Cybersquatting is "taking ownership" of a digital identifier in order to either harm others or force them into a buyout. Alexander Sent from my Samsung device -------- Original message -------- From: lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Date: 11/26/19 11:06 (GMT-05:00) To: trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary Marc Trachtenberg: Limiting cybersquatting to trademarks is a peculiarly US consideration. I regard ANY accumulation by a Registry of whatever strings for speculative purposes as cybersquatting - or if you prefer it - by any other name. Regarding innovation, I consider that a gTLD Registry is providing a public service to Registrars and Registrants. CW On 26 Nov 2019, at 16:55, <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> <trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com>> wrote: Christopher, Can you please clarify your comment below as I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you arguing that we should not try to enable innovation at the gTLD level and that innovation can only occur at the second (or third) level? With respect to cybersquatting, that occurs when someone registers a domain name in a bad faith attempt to profit from another’s trademark. As so many of you have pointed out, no one has any rights to a generic or nonsense term that is not used as an indicator of source (i.e., a trademark). So what cybersquatting are you referring to? Best regards, Marc H. Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601 Tel 312.456.1020 Mobile 773.677.3305 trac@gtlaw.com<mailto:trac@gtlaw.com> | www.gtlaw.com<http://www.gtlaw.com/> <image001.jpg> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 2:14 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary All, I do not accept the ’innovation' argument at the gTLD level. The main argument for innovation and intelligence on the Internet has been that it takes place at the periphery. Indeed it does. In this context that means innovation by the Registrant. As I have said before, the economic rent of a good name should accrue to the Registrant (which is also why I oppose premium pricing.) The principal issue here is not innovation, It is speculation. From cybersquatting the dictionary at the second level, we would be moving towards legitimatising cybersquatting the Gazetteers at the top level. No. CW On 25 Nov 2019, at 16:31, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: All, This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement. In trying to sum up where we are: Proposal: Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years). Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement. What is the problem we are trying to Solve? * From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.” * From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.” * From Christopher: “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings. * Supported by Jorge From those not in favor of the Proposal * Kristine: No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”; ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate the information.
participants (2)
-
Alexander Schubert -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com