[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Mon Jan 7 23:37:32 UTC 2019


Dear colleagues,

If you did not receive a copy of the slide deck by way of attachment to my
original email (recorded at the bottom of this email thread), you can now
download a copy of the same off the CPWG 9 Jan 2019 agenda wiki page found
at: https://community.icann.org/x/y4oWBg
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2Fy4oWBg&sa=D&usd=2&usg=AFQjCNEyd43gQL0vyu47EnCBH5RQKFrGcQ>

Justine
-----


On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 04:51, mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW <
mail at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> Jonathan:  The Brand community (If that this is an
> appropriate characterisation, because it is NOT a Community in the sense of
> the new TLD programme) has already received extensive protection from the
> public authorities in the form of their trademarks' protection, as extended
> de facto through the DNS and UDRP. What more do they want?
>
> How do you perceive an alliance with At Large?
>
> My main priority  - in terms of international perceptions - would be to do
> something (anything) to correct the gross imbalances arising from the 2012
> round to which Evan has already referred. So, Phase One is the underserved
> categories from 2012.
>
> Happy New Year to you all
>
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
> El 5 de enero de 2019 a las 21:31 Jonathan Zuck <
> JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió:
>
> I wonder if, instead of taking the normative approach that Christopher has
> taken here, we think in terms of leverage.  Does our support for such a
> proposal potentially create allies in the brand community (which are a
> growing number of the contracted parties) for some of the other things we
> want like a more fleshed out community round/process? Just a thought.
>
>
>
> I appreciate Christopher’s thinking on this and don’t mean to be
> dismissive but I wonder if we’re missing an opportunity here.
>
>
>
> *From: *GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of "
> mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Reply-To: *"mail at christopherwilkinson.eu CW" <
> mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> *Date: *Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 2:08 PM
> *To: *Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <
> ocl at gih.com>, "cpwg at icann.org" <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Subsequent
> Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New
> gTLD Application Model
>
>
>
> Good evening :
>
> Many thanks to Justine and Olivier for taking this up. Allow me a few
> preliminary comments with regard to the so-called Neustar proposal.
>
> Needless to say what follows relates to my understanding of the Neustar
> proposal, and not to Justine's presentation of it which is highly
> instructive for which I am grateful.
>
> This appears to go back to Donna Austin's October (pre-Barcelona) article
> in Circle ID
> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20181014_new_tld_subsequent_procedures_a_proposed_model_to_move_forward/>
> .
>
> On page 3 of the slide deck:
>
>    - We have both 'unknown level of demand' and 'issues of pent-up
>    demand'- One or the other, but not both?
>    - My understanding of the PDP's work to date is that there is NO
>    expectation of an 'open round',_ever_.
>    Just imagine an open global round, all languages and scripts, all
>    geographies, all national trademarks, all generic terms, etc.
>    I think that is just not going to happen.
>    - I rather doubt that the ICANN Board has been so imprudent as to
>    commit to the next round 'as expeditiously as possible'. (I would stand to
>    be corrected!)
>    - There is nothing new about a 'phased application process' which has
>    been discussed in the PDP since months ago. There are however, indeed,
>    significant differences as to what the phases, sometimes referred to as
>    'batches', should comprise.
>    - The primary constraint on the phases is the ability of ICANN staff
>    to undertake the evaluation of applications in a fair, transparent and
>    professionally responsible manner. It has become clear that cannot be done
>    'concurrently'.
>
> Turning to Page 4 of the Slide Deck:
>
> Phase 1:
>
> - I see no reason to give .brands priority. The companies concerned
> already hold their well-protected trademarks and domain names. They will
> loose nothing from waiting their turn. (I also have doubts as to the ICANN
> community's ability to deal with .brands in IDN scripts, but that it
> another matter).
>
> - Phase I should be designated for under-served categories from the 2012
> Round.
>
> N.B. Acquiring a .brand TLD should never become the basis for application
> for an ex-post facto Trademark.
>
> Phase 2:
>
> - Geographic TLDs should constitute a dedicated 'phase', not necessarily
> the highest priority in time, since there are many unresolved issues.
> However, there is no agreement about this in WT5.
> Furthermore, WT5 is also far from an agreement on 'clearly defined
> eligibility criteria', notably because of the persistent – but politically
> unsustainable – demand that non-geographical use should not be subject to
> prior authorisation. Also, future geographical use would be threatened by
> an 'open round' and eventual FCFS.
>
> -
> Phase 3:
>
> - to subsume community TLDs with generic TLDs is just asking for trouble.
> Particularly if auctions are allowed for commercial 'generic' applicants to
> 'buy out' community applicants.
>
> - the slide does however implicitly recognise – perhaps inadvertently -
> that .brands, .geographicals, and .communities are NOT 'generic'.
>
> Phase N+1: An Open Round?
>
>    - As noted above, at present I would discount this possibility. I am
>    sure, whatever happens meanwhile, that option will be revisited nearer the
>    time-
>
>
>
> More generally, there is a problem with the method of this GNSO PDP. It is
> not just a matter of possible individual 'conflict of interest'. There are
> aspects of this process which defy generally accepted principles of due
> process, bearing in mind that the process is intended to assign potentially
> valuable assets to new DNS operators. For instance:
>
> - It should not be possible for the incumbent operators to determine the
> terms and conditions for new entrants;
>
> - conditions of fair competition in the public interest require that
> Registries are normally independent of Registrars and that Registrars treat
> Registries on a non-discriminatory basis.
>
> - policy should prevent undue concentration in this industry.
>
> - even within the narrow confines of an ICANN community bottom-up policy
> development process, it is quite extraordinary that Donna Austin's original
> piece, now be elevated into a 'Neustar' proposal and presented by the
> Co-Chair of the PDP.
>
>
> Regards to you all,
>
> CW
>
>
>
> El 5 de enero de 2019 a las 9:49 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> escribió:
>
> Dear Justine,
>
> thank you very much for putting together slides with Neustar's proposals.
> I must admit that these slides made me feel particularly uneasy about the
> whole process of subsequent procedures. Without prejudice, here we have the
> Chair of the working group, main driver of the working group moving
> forward, ex-Neustar and currently working for Valideus, a company that
> stands to capitalise significantly in the creation of brand TLDs, pushing a
> calendar that is suggested by his ex-firm, favouring his current firm. I
> cannot stop seeing a flashing sign telling me "conflict of interest" here.
>
> At ICANN Studienkreis and elsewhere, Cherine Chalaby has been asking the
> community about the need for a fast next round, and the majority of people
> around the table, whether end users, businesses, registrars and established
> registries said they were not eager for an immediate next round. It is only
> companies that stand to benefit directly from new gTLDs, such as the
> service providers that have flourished to help with TLD applications (and
> independent consultants), or register brands, or apply a city TLD business
> model that they have already applied elsewhere, who are pushing for a next
> round.
>
> I am not against a next round, but when I see an illustration on page 4
> saying "brand TLDs" with an application window 1st Oct 2919 to 12 Jan 2020
> (even though there is an asterisk saying proposed dates are illustrative
> only), this worries me as a way to circulate potential dates for next
> round. That is, again, putting the carriage before the horses.
>
> That said, on the actual concept of three phase model, and irrespective of
> the above, I am not against the concept of phases, but I do not agree with
> the proposed phases themselves. Phase 1, brands, sound okay, except for
> those brands that are geographic names. I would argue that Community TLDs
> should not be batched with generic TLDs and should be prioritised before
> GeoTLDs. So Community TLDs should go to phase 2 and Geo TLDs could go to
> phase 3. I would also say that I have seen significant pushback on generic
> TLDs that are based on generic words, so I really wonder how that is going
> to pan out.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> On 05/01/2019 09:08, Justine Chew wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Greetings for the New Year 2019.
>
> During one of the SubPro PDP Sub-Group's review of community submissions
> received for the Public Comment on the Initial Report on the New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures PDP (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4) (which
> concluded on 26 Sep 2018), that WG's Co-Chair, Jeff Neuman, requested that
> SO/AC liaisons obtain from their stakeholder groups * feedback on a
> proposal by Neustar for the (next) New gTLD Program applications to be
> conducted in three phases followed by an open round*.
>
> *Details of Neustar's proposal are contained in the attached slide deck. *
>
> I invite you to provide feedback on the same by:-
>
> 1) Replying to this email (or to me privately, if you prefer);
> 2) Starting a separate email thread to cpwg at icann.org if you wish to
> discuss a specific aspect of the said proposal; and/or
> 3) Joining the next CPWG call (tentatively on 9 Jan 2019, please look out
> for a notice from At-Large staff for this call)
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Justine Chew
> -----
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CPWG mailing list
>
> CPWG at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
>
> --
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/registration-issues-wg/attachments/20190108/65f7bf33/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg


More information about the registration-issues-wg mailing list