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

[Alan Greenberg]

Is it just me, or has our entire workplan and 
subteam effort been short-circuited?

gTLDs are important to me, but with the volume of 
e-mail we are seeing, this is requiring too much of my day.

Alan



At 17/05/2017 08:14 PM, Rob Hall wrote:

>Greg,
>
>Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ????
>
>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.
>
>And all applications in the round would be 
>treated as equals in terms of filing times.
>
>Rob
>
>From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on 
>behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM
>To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
>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
>
>I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS 
>outside 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).
>
>Rubens' third point is substantially similar to 
>the proposition in my email.  Great minds, etc.
>
>Greg
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: 917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl 
><<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>rubensk at nic.br> wrote:
>
>I would like to comment generically in this 
>thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to.
>
>- 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.
>- The round x continuous discussion is between 
>alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe
>- 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 ?
>
>I believe that if we answer those questions, 
>whatever comes after are just implementation decisions.
>
>
>Rubens
>
>Em 17 de mai de 2017, Ã (s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com> escreveu:
>
>Greg,
>
>What would roundless continuous applications 
>look like if not FCFS ?   Perhaps it is the FCFS 
>term that is causing irritation.
>
>Here is what I mean when I use it.
>
>The TLD is NOT taken.
>The TLD has no previous application in process.
>An application is received for the TLD.
>ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts 
>running down the agreed upon path we have now 
>(or will have for the next round).
>If the application passes all the tests, 
>objections etc, then the applicant enters into a 
>contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
>
>I am NOT suggesting any different process than 
>if a TLD in a round had only one applicant.  It would be identical.
>
>Rob
>
>From: 
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>on behalf of Greg Shatan 
><<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM
>To: Phil Corwin <<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>psc at vlaw-dc.com>
>Cc: 
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><<mailto: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 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.)
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Maybe the Tea Rose-Rectanus Doctrine would be more on point? :-)
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin 
><<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>Shouldn’t that be Sunrise Donut? ;-)
>
>Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>Virtualaw LLC
>1155 F Street, NW
>Suite 1050
>Washington, DC 20004
><tel:(202)%20559-8597>202-559-8597/Direct
><tel:(202)%20559-8750>202-559-8750/Fax
><tel:(202)%20255-6172>202-255-6172/Cell
>
>Twitter: @VlawDC
>
>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] 
>On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM
>To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>Cc: <mailto: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 know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
>
>
>
>On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, 
>Anne <<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
>
>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.
>
>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)
>
>“Priority”  is about dates established in 
>relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.
>
>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).
>
>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 succeed”.
>
>Anne
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
><tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office
><tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax
><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com
>_____________________________
><image006.png>
>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
><http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
>
>From: Greg Shatan 
>[<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM
>To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; 
>Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; 
><mailto: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
>
>Anne,
>
>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.
>
>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....
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, 
>Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
>Greg,
>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.
>
>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.”    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.
>
>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.)
>Anne
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
><tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office
><tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax
><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com
>_____________________________
><image003.png>
>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
><http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
>
>From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:28 AM
>To: Rob Hall
>Cc: Aikman-Scalese, Anne; Jeff Neuman; Alan 
>Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; 
><mailto: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
>
>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.
>
>At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be 
>settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened 
>Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
><image004.png>
>
>
>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.
>
>
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com> wrote:
>Greg,
>
>We have a land rush for TLD’s.  That’s a fact of life.  There is demand.
>
>We are artificially creating many such rushes, 
>by using rounds.   We let demand build up and 
>then release it, then start over again.
>
>Rob.
>
>From: Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM
>To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com>
>Cc: Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 
>Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>, 
>Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, 
>Christa Taylor 
><<mailto:christa at dottba.com>christa at dottba.com>, 
>Volker Greimann 
><<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net>, 
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><<mailto: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
>
>Rob,
>
>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.
>
>Greg
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, 
>Aikman-Scalese, Anne <<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com> wrote:
>Greg,
>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 “gaming”.
>
>Anne
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
><tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office
><tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax
><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com
>_____________________________
><image005.png>
>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
><http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
>
>From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:29 PM
>To: Jeff Neuman
>Cc: Rob Hall; Alan Greenberg; Aikman-Scalese, 
>Anne; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; 
><mailto: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 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.
>
>Greg
>
>Greg Shatan
>C: <tel:(917)%20816-6428>917-816-6428
>S: gsshatan
><mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman 
><<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>Rob,
>
>To clarify, and I think this is consistent with some other proposals as well:
>
>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.
>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 ;)).
>
>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.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
>1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>E: 
><mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>jeff.neuman at valideus.com 
>or <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>T: <tel:(703)%20635-7514>+1.703.635.7514
>M: <tel:(202)%20549-5079>+1.202.549.5079
>@Jintlaw
>
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>[mailto:<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] 
>On Behalf Of Rob Hall
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM
>To: Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; 
>Aikman-Scalese, Anne 
><<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com>; 
>'Christa Taylor' 
><<mailto:christa at dottba.com>christa at dottba.com>; 
>'Volker Greimann' 
><<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net>; 
><mailto: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
>
>OK .. didn’t mean to step on anyones toes that 
>was not part of this current string.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>As an example, would we need categories ?
>
>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.
>
>But for priority ?   Can’t see why a category 
>would be needed at all in a FCFS world.
>
>So then the question becomes are they really 
>relevant during what I will call the 
>“Contention landrush period”, or perhaps 
>“Contention Sunrise”.   Because that seems 
>to be where most of the debate is focused.
>
>Rob
>
>From: Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM
>To: Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>, 
>"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" 
><<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com>, 
>'Christa Taylor' 
><<mailto:christa at dottba.com>christa at dottba.com>, 
>'Volker Greimann' 
><<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net>, 
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><<mailto: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
>
>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".
>
>Alan
>
>At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
>Anne,
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>When they announce is not related to when the 
>application is received and the priority it gets 
>in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
>
>Rob
>
>From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM
>To: 'Christa Taylor' 
><<mailto:christa at dottba.com>christa at dottba.com>, 
>'Volker Greimann' 
><<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>vgreimann at key-systems.net>, 
>Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>, 
>"<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><<mailto: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
>
>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:
>
>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 chase†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‚€ .
>
>(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?)
>
>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.
>
>3.      Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes 
>all ccomers and applications compete.  String 
>contention and all objection procedures apply.
>
>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).
>
>Anne
>
>Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
>Of Counsel
><tel:(520)%20629-4428>520.629.4428 office
><tel:(520)%20879-4725>520.879.4725 fax
><mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>AAikman at lrrc.com
>_____________________________
>
>Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
><http://lrrc.com/>lrrc.com
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>[<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org]On Behalf Of Christa Taylor
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:07 AM
>To: 'Volker Greimann'; 'Rob Hall'; 
><mailto: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
>
>Lots of different perspectives so thought I̢۪d add another.
>
>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.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Christa
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org 
>[<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org]On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
>Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM
>To: Rob Hall 
><<mailto:rob at momentous.com>rob at momentous.com>; 
><mailto: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
>
>
>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.
>
>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".
>
>OTOH, I am not a big fan of rounds either. Keeping it simple has its benefits.
>
>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.
>
>Best,
>
>Volker
>
>
>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:43 schrieb Rob Hall:
>Sigh.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Rob
>
>From: Volker Greimann 
><mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net><vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
>To: Rob Hall 
><mailto:rob at momentous.com><rob at momentous.com>, 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><mailto: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
>
>Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake 
>that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?
>
>Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
>Volker,
>
>Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.
>
>Many TLD̢۪s had ad a round prior to FCFS that 
>served to handle the load of the rush.
>
>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.
>
>Rob
>
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>on behalf of Volker 
>Greimann<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net><vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 AM
>To: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><mailto: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 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.
>  Domains are registered every day on a first 
> come first served basis in all the new gTLD̢۪s.
>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.
>Opening the gates will always create an initial 
>rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
>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.
>That is nice if you sell such monitoring 
>services, but not cost effective for those affected.
>From: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org><gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> 
>on behalf of Alexander 
>Schubert<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><alexander at schubert.berlin>
>Reply-To: 
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>"alexander at schubert.berlin" 
><mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin><alexander at schubert.berlin>
>Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM
>To: 
><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" 
><mailto: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
>
>Rob,
>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/8e7fc446/attachment-0001.html>