[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

Tue May 16 15:45:21 UTC 2017

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 at 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 at thomsentrampedach.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:53 PM
> To: alexander at schubert.berlin
> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at 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 at thomsentrampedach.com
> W       http://thomsentrampedach.com
>
> > On 16 May 2017, at 15:31, Alexander Schubert <alexander at 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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
> > To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> > Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at 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 â€œin 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 â€œCategoriesâ€  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 at gmail.com>
> >> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
> >> To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>
> >> Cc: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org>, Jeff Neuman <
> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <
> gnso-newgtld-wg at 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 at gmail.com
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> wrote:
> >> I honestly canâ€™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 at icann.org> on behalf of Martin Sutton <
> martin at brandregistrygroup.org>
> >> Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
> >> To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >
> >> Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" < gnso-newgtld-wg at 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 at brandregistrygroup.org
> >>
> >> On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at 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 at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
> >> T: +1.703.635.7514
> >> M: +1.202.549.5079
> >> @Jintlaw
> >>
> >>
> >> From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-
> bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
> >> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
> >> To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg at 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 todayâ€™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, â€œimpossibleâ€
> ) 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 wasnâ€™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, â€˜yesâ€™ and the other
> â€™noâ€™? 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 at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170516/43bb071e/attachment-0001.html>