I am also in full agreement that the protection of "Global Well Known Brands" is potentially beneficial to the Internet User and Trademarks. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:

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_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

_______________________________________________ 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