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

Thu May 18 04:12:04 UTC 2017

A reveal and then allowing for others to copy is not advised. And seriously
inviting copying. It should be a secret closed 180 days. If a duplicate is
filed in that window it gets grouped as a contention set.

On May 17, 2017 8:51 PM, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's no reason to assume that the innovator will file first and that
> the "deep pockets" will come in afterwards.  It could just as easily be the
> other way.  Indeed, a larger, well-funded company will have the resources
> to file quickly and across multiple desirable TLDs while the scrappy
> innovator is still out raising funds.  I would argue that batching
> encourages innovation by leveling the playing field.
>
> There's no reason to assume that large registry operators will not be
> innovative....
>
> There's also no reason to assume that the "innovative use" will be set
> forth in the application with sufficient specificity, or that if it is,
> that it will be revealed during the holding period.  Perhaps all that will
> be disclosed during the holding period is that Entity X applied for TLD Y.
>
> Greg
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Good grief – how can this possibly reward innovative uses of new gTLDs?
>> Every large registry operator sees every other application and says – I can
>> afford to spend more for that than the people who generated the idea.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>>
>> Of Counsel
>>
>> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>>
>> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>>
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>>
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>>
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>
>> lrrc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounce
>> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 3:45 PM
>> *To:* Rob Hall
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's not the term, it's the concept.  Also, disagreement is not
>> irritation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Continuous applications without FCFS could look like this (off the top of
>> my head):
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. An application is received for a TLD.
>>
>> 2. The application is made public.
>>
>> 3. A holding period commences (e.g., 90 days), during which other
>> applications for the same string can be filed and "batched" with the
>> initial filing.
>>
>> 4. All the applications filed during the holding period will be treated
>> as a contention set.
>>
>> 5. Contention sets can be resolved as they are today -- categories and
>> priorities will be relevant here.
>>
>> 6. If the application is uncontended after the holding period ends, ICANN
>> starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path
>> we have now (or will have for the next round).
>>
>> 7. Once the contention set is resolved, the winner proceeds as in (6)
>> above.
>>
>> 8. If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the
>> applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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: *<gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM
>> *To: *Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.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
>>
>>
>>
>> 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: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <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*
>>
>> *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
>>
>> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
>>
>> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>>
>>
>>
>> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounce
>> s at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jon Nevett
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM
>> *To:* Aikman-Scalese, Anne
>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <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 that are either “too big to fail” or else “too
>> small to succeed”.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>
>> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>>
>> Of Counsel
>>
>> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>>
>> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>>
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>> <image006.png>
>>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>>
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>>
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>
>> lrrc.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> <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; 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: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <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 course 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 apply 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
>> them 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-Use 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
>>
>> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>>
>> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>>
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>> <image003.png>
>>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>>
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>>
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>
>> 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; 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 legal date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. The
>> 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: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <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 <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM
>> *To: *"Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
>> *Cc: *Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>,
>> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, Christa Taylor <
>> christa at dottba.com>, Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "
>> 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: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <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
>>
>> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>>
>> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>>
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>> <image005.png>
>>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>>
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>>
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>>
>> 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; 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: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428>
>> S: gsshatan
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <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: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>>
>> T: +1.703.635.7514 <(703)%20635-7514>
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079 <(202)%20549-5079>
>>
>> @Jintlaw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld
>> -wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rob Hall
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM
>> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
>> AAikman at lrrc.com>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>; 'Volker
>> Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>; 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 <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM
>> *To: *Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <
>> AAikman at lrrc.com>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>, 'Volker
>> Greimann' <vgreimann at key-systems.net>, "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 donâ€™t 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" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM
>> *To: *'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com>, 'Volker Greimann' <
>> vgreimann at key-systems.net>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.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
>>
>> What about a hybrid approach?  FCFS is a terrible idea when no
>> application has been permitted for over 5 years.  There is â€œpent-upâ€
>> demand.   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 â€œwork it outâ€ ?  Why not â€œcut to the chaseâ€ and work
>> it out with the GAC now ?   All Objection processes should apply.  PICs
>> have to be made in connection with Community applications and they canâ€™t
>> be revoked or it voids the registry agreement.    Itâ€™s up to Track 3 to
>> develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we donâ€™t
>> trample on certain rights by stating that a Community application has to
>> meet a â€œsocial goodâ€ requirement.  â€œCommunityâ€ is also about freedom
>> of association, or in this case, freedom of â€œvirtual associationâ€ .
>>
>> (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 â€œestoppelâ€ factor if geo name not covered by old
>> version of AGB?)
>>
>> 2.      Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands.
>> Why?  Because itâ€™s 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 welcome - 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
>> 520.629.4428 <(520)%20629-4428> office
>> 520.879.4725 <(520)%20879-4725> fax
>> AAikman at lrrc.com
>> _____________________________
>>
>> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>> One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
>> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>> lrrc.com
>>
>> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtl
>> d-wg-bounces at icann.org <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'; 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 Iâ€™d add another.
>>
>> Appears 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?   Iâ€™m not saying that these are solutions but
>> just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Christa
>>
>> *From:* gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [ mailto:gnso-newgtl
>> d-wg-bounces at icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>]*On Behalf
>> Of *Volker Greimann
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 16, 2017 8:54 AM
>> *To:* Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; 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 <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>> <vgreimann at key-systems.net>
>>
>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
>>
>> To: Rob Hall  <rob at momentous.com>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/8bcbb381/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170517/8bcbb381/image003-0001.png>