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

Thu May 18 04:32:46 UTC 2017

Avri

Jeff

ALL

i expressed doubts about FCFS  from the very beginning that it was proposed.

ICANN does not have any experience on how it would practically works.

Other entities outside ICANN system have long experience on how it works
and what are the advantages and drawbacks.

When I raised the issue I was told that it is yet to be fully discussed and
analyzed very carefully and cautiously.

It should not give rise to some sort of warehousing in DNS for those who
are quicker than others and have more possibilities than others.

Providing the opportunity to file every day or every hours a TLD and then
continuing the process of objection is inefficient .

The entire process should be looked at again.

For the time being I am not in favour of such inefficient and damaging
process.

Avri and JEFF are kindly requested to take necessary actions on this regards

Cheers

Kavouss

2017-05-18 6:12 GMT+02:00 Jay Westerdal <jay at topspectrum.com>:

> 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
>> ...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170518/bdba6b47/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/20170518/bdba6b47/image003-0001.png>