<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>+1!!<br><br><div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; widows: 2; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: '.HelveticaNeueInterface-M3';">Very truly yours,</span></div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Karen J. Bernstein</div><div><span style="font-size: 13pt;">Bernstein IP</span></div><div>200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700</div><div>New York, New York 10166</div><div>Tel: (212) 339-9955</div><div>Fax: (212-682-0278</div><div>E-Mail: <a href="mailto:kjb@bernsteinip.com">kjb@bernsteinip.com</a></div><div>Website: <a href="http://www.BernsteinIP.com">www.BernsteinIP.com</a></div><div>Skype: K.Bernsteinlaw</div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>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.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br>On May 17, 2017, at 5:40 PM, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div>
Is it just me, or has our entire workplan and subteam effort been
short-circuited?<br><br>
gTLDs are important to me, but with the volume of e-mail we are seeing,
this is requiring too much of my day.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br><br>
At 17/05/2017 08:14 PM, Rob Hall wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Greg,<br>
<br>
Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ????<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
And all applications in the round would be treated as equals in terms of
filing times.<br>
<br>
Rob<br>
<br>
<b>From: </b><<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Greg
Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>Rubens Kuhl <<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
<br>
I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS <i><u>outside</u></i> 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).<br>
<br>
Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my
email. Great minds, etc.<br>
<br>
Greg<br><br>
<b><a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"></a>Greg
Shatan<a name="UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeH"></a><br>
</b>C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>
<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl
<<a href="mailto:rubensk@nic.br">rubensk@nic.br</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
</dd><dd>I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't
see the below content as what I'm replying to. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>- 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. <br>
</dd><dd>- The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are
more similar than people seem to believe<br>
</dd><dd>- 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 ? <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are
just implementation decisions. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rubens<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd>Em 17 de mai de 2017, Ã (s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>
escreveu:<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Greg,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS
? Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing
irritation.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Here is what I mean when I use it.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>The TLD is NOT taken. <br>
</dd><dd>The TLD has no previous application in process.<br>
</dd><dd>An application is received for the TLD.<br>
</dd><dd>ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the
agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).<br>
</dd><dd>If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the
applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is
delegated.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round
had only one applicant. It would be identical. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From:
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Phil Corwin
<<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Cc:
"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.)<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point?
:-)<br><br>
</dd><dd><a name="m_-6783499557164102920_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtm"></a>Greg
Shatan<a name="m_-6783499557164102920_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtm"></a><br>
</dd><dd>C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428">917-816-6428</a><br>
</dd><dd>S: gsshatan<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin
<<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
</dd><dd>Virtualaw LLC<br>
</dd><dd>1155 F Street, NW<br>
</dd><dd>Suite 1050<br>
</dd><dd>Washington, DC 20004<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(202)%20559-8597">202-559-8597</a>/Direct<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(202)%20559-8750">202-559-8750</a>/Fax<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(202)%20255-6172">202-255-6172</a>/Cell<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
</dd><dd>Cc:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd>On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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)<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>“Priority†is about dates established in relation to Paris
Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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).<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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€.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
</dd><dd>Of Counsel<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428">520.629.4428</a> office<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725">520.879.4725</a> fax<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>_____________________________<br>
</dd><dd><image006.png><br>
</dd><dd>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
</dd><dd>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700<br>
</dd><dd>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
</dd><dd><a href="http://lrrc.com/">lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Greg Shatan
[<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">
mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>] <br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne<br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker
Greimann;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.... <br><br>
</dd><dd>Greg Shatan<br>
</dd><dd>C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428">917-816-6428</a><br>
</dd><dd>S: gsshatan<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>Greg,<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.â€
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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.)<br>
</dd><dd>Anne<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
</dd><dd>Of Counsel<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428">520.629.4428</a> office<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725">520.879.4725</a> fax<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>_____________________________<br>
</dd><dd><image003.png><br>
</dd><dd>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
</dd><dd>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700<br>
</dd><dd>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
</dd><dd><a href="http://lrrc.com/">lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Greg Shatan
[<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>] <br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Rob Hall<br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa
Taylor; Volker Greimann;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd>At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad
dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd><image004.png><br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd></dl>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>Greg Shatan<br>
</dd><dd>C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428">917-816-6428</a><br>
</dd><dd>S: gsshatan<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>Greg,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>We have a land rush for TLD’s. That’s a fact of life.
There is demand.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>We are artificially creating many such rushes, by using
rounds. We let demand build up and then release it, then
start over again.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Greg Shatan
<<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne"
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Jeff Neuman
<<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
>, Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>, Alan
Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>, Christa Taylor
<<a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com">christa@dottba.com</a>>,
Volker Greimann
<<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">
vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Greg<br><br>
</dd><dd>Greg Shatan<br>
</dd><dd>C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428">917-816-6428</a><br>
</dd><dd>S: gsshatan<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Greg,<br>
</dd><dd>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€.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
</dd><dd>Of Counsel<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428">520.629.4428</a> office<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725">520.879.4725</a> fax<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>_____________________________<br>
</dd><dd><image005.png><br>
</dd><dd>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
</dd><dd>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700<br>
</dd><dd>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
</dd><dd><a href="http://lrrc.com/">lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Greg Shatan
[<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>] <br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Jeff Neuman<br>
</dd><dd>Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Christa
Taylor; Volker Greimann;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Greg<br><br>
</dd><dd><a name="m_-6783499557164102920_m_800220008495637"></a>Greg
Shatan<a name="m_-6783499557164102920_m_800220008495637"></a><br>
</dd><dd>C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428">917-816-6428</a><br>
</dd><dd>S: gsshatan<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman
<<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a>
> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>Rob,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals
as well:<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd>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 ;)).<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Thanks!<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
</dd><dd>Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA<br>
</dd><dd>1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600<br>
</dd><dd>Mclean, VA 22102, United States<br>
</dd><dd>E:
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com">jeff.neuman@valideus.com</a> or
<a href="mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com">jeff.neuman@comlaude.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>T: <a href="tel:(703)%20635-7514">+1.703.635.7514</a><br>
</dd><dd>M: <a href="tel:(202)%20549-5079">+1.202.549.5079</a><br>
</dd><dd>@Jintlaw<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Rob Hall<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>; 'Christa
Taylor'
<<a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com">christa@dottba.com</a>>;
'Volker Greimann'
<<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">
vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that was not part of this
current string.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>As an example, would we need categories ? <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>But for priority ? Can’t see why a category would be
needed at all in a FCFS world.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>,
"Aikman-Scalese, Anne"
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>>, 'Christa
Taylor'
<<a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com">christa@dottba.com</a>>,
'Volker Greimann'
<<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">
vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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".<br><br>
</dd><dd>Alan<br><br>
</dd><dd>At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Anne,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>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.
<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>When they announce is not related to when the application is received
and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Rob<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne"
<<a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM<br>
</dd><dd>To: 'Christa Taylor'
<<a href="mailto:christa@dottba.com">christa@dottba.com</a>>,
'Volker Greimann'
<<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">
vgreimann@key-systems.net</a>>, Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>,
"<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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:<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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 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 can̢۪t 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 don̢۪t
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‚€ .<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>(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?)<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>2. Applications from Brands – Yes, 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 – 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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>3. Open Window of Six Months – ICANN
takes all ccomers and applications compete. String contention and
all objection procedures apply.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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). <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese<br>
</dd><dd>Of Counsel<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20629-4428">520.629.4428</a> office<br>
</dd><dd><a href="tel:(520)%20879-4725">520.879.4725</a> fax<br>
</dd><dd><a href="mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com">AAikman@lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd>_____________________________<br><br>
</dd><dd>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP<br>
</dd><dd>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700<br>
</dd><dd>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611<br>
</dd><dd><a href="http://lrrc.com/">lrrc.com</a><br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]On Behalf Of Christa
Taylor<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall';
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Lots of different perspectives so thought I̢۪d add another.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Cheers,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Christa <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>
[<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]On Behalf Of Volker
Greimann<br>
</dd><dd>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Rob Hall
<<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br><br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>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". <br><br>
</dd><dd>OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its
benefits.<br><br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Best,<br><br>
</dd><dd>Volker<br><br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:<br>
</dd><dd>Sigh.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From: Volker Greimann
<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">
<vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To: Rob Hall
<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com"><rob@momentous.com></a>,
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
<gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org></a><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot
realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:<br>
</dd><dd>Volker,<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round
first. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Many TLD̢۪s had ad a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the
load of the rush. <br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf of Volker
Greimann<a href="mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net">
<vgreimann@key-systems.net></a><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
<gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org></a><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd> 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.<br>
</dd><dd> Domains are registered every day on a first come first served
basis in all the new gTLD̢۪s. <br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd>Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest
will benefit from most.<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd><dd>That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost
effective for those affected.<br>
</dd><dd>From:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org></a> on behalf of Alexander
Schubert<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">
<alexander@schubert.berlin></a><br>
</dd><dd>Reply-To:
<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">
"alexander@schubert.berlin"</a>
<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin">
<alexander@schubert.berlin></a><br>
</dd><dd>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM<br>
</dd><dd>To:
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org"</a>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
<gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org></a><br>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd>Rob,<br>
</dd><dd>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. Doesn̢۪t matmatter
whether it is a “round†or an “ongoin“ongoing process†– thhe
number of applications wonâ€Ã¢â‚¬™t change.<br>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl>
</dd></dl></blockquote>
</div><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a></span></div></body></html>