[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Shreema Sarkar
shreema at duaassociates.com
Thu May 18 06:55:19 UTC 2017
I too second the land-rush analogy since objective of any policy is to serve
the global public interest.
_______________________________
Shreema Sarkar
Dua Associates
Advocates & Solicitors
202-206, Tolstoy House, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 110001, India
Tel: +91 11 2371 4408│ Fax: +91 11 2331 7746 │Mobile: +91 9811007439
│e-mail: <mailto:shreema at duaassociates.com> shreema at duaassociates.com
This e-mail is confidential, privileged and for the addressee only.
Unintended recipients are kindly requested to destroy this mail and any
attachments. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message not
relating to the official business of this Firm shall be understood as
neither given nor endorsed by it.
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: 18 May 2017 12:22
To: AAikman at lrrc.com; jeff.neuman at comlaude.com; rob at momentous.com;
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca; christa at dottba.com; 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
Dear Anne,
I found the land-rush analogy quite interesting (as put forward by Greg).
With the important caveat that (we may say) there are already people
scattered on the lands subject to the land rush – and they should have a
fair say during the process, which implies that a FCFS does not work.
A string may sometimes be only one possible combination of meanings which
may not affect anyone – but it may also have a lot of significance to a
certain people, community etc. – we should not put them in a situation where
they have to continuously monitor applications and (if they are made aware
of the application) use costly objection procedures…
After all the policy is there to serve the global public interest – and I
don’t think you can boil that down to a FCFS system…
Regards
Jorge
Von: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 17:53
An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>;
jeff.neuman at comlaude.com; rob at momentous.com; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca;
christa at dottba.com; vgreimann at key-systems.net; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Betreff: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Hi Jorge,
I don’t think we should treat TLDs like oil & gas deposits. The reason is
that there are many variations on possible TLDs and the use of words depends
on creativity in the marketplace. Importantly, there are Objection
procedures to address the types of concerns you are raising.
At a certain future point, I think FCFS makes sense in a free market, as
long as we have more efficient and less costly objection procedures and
thorough evaluation prior to award as well as commitment to PICs and no
change in purpose on Question 18 unless approved by ICANN.
I do think that there has to be a standard though in relation to Greg’s
concern that applicants who have no intention of launching a particular TLD
will just try to reserve it. In other words, a time period during which you
“Launch it or Lose It”.
What does the old AGB say about time requirements for launch from the point
of the award of the TLD?
Anne
Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428 office
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: Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:39 PM
To: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com; rob at momentous.com; alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca;
Aikman-Scalese, Anne; christa at dottba.com; vgreimann at key-systems.net;
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: AW: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
Dear all
I just don’t get it how a unique resource (a TLD) might be delegated on a
FCFS basis. After all there will always be potential legitimate contending
claims and interests – but the relevant stakeholder may not be as quick as
others with e.g. deeper pockets: should a unique resource be delegated just
because someone is quicker?
Kind regards
Jorge
Von: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] Im Auftrag von Jeff Neuman
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Mai 2017 04:57
An: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; 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
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC
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: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@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
don’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 “pent-up†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 “work it out� Why not “cut to the chase†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 can’t be revoked
or it voids the registry agreement. It’s up to Track 3 to develop more
policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on
certain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a
“social good†requirement. “Community†is also about freedom of
association, or in this case, freedom of “virtual 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 “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old
version of AGB?)
2. Applications from Brands – Yes, I favor a windoow for brands. Why?
Because it’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 office
520.879.4725 fax
AAikman at lrrc.com
_____________________________
]
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com <http://lrrc.com/>
From: 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'; 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 I’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? I’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-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 <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 <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 TLD’s had 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 gTLD’s.
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� I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month
after we open the floodgates. Doesn’t matter whether it is a “roundâ€
or an “ongoing process†– thhe number of applications won’t change.
If you have no “round†– what is it then? The only othher thing than a
“round†is “First Comes First Servedâ€. That’s a competition
KILLER. The ones will win who have the best “gTLD snapping technologyâ€.
Why would we ELIMINATE competition?
There is no way around having a “round†once we are ready to accept
applications. Plus there needs to be AMPLE time (at least 6 month) after the
final Applicant Guidebook is published for applicants to make themselves
familiar with the AGB and form their application: This time it won’t be
only ICANN insiders who apply – but also many outsiders. The application
window itself could then be rather short (1 week should be enough).
But I agree with you: Instead of a vague “promise†of a next round in
“about a year†– we should ALREADY set the date for the nnext
application window 6 to 12 month later. A fixed date! It wouldn’t make
much sense to have the next window right 3 month later – ICANN’s
capacities will nnot allow for it. Also the next window dates should be
FIXED.
So it’s almost like your “continuous application mechanism†with one
“launch date†– just that there are various windows with fixed dates. To
allow for competition to happen.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Rob Hall [mailto:rob at momentous.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:38 PM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin; 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
Alexander,
There is no way that ICANN does rounds as fast as you are desiring. There
will always be forces that want to delay, and use review and updating to
enact that delay.
The last guidebook contemplated a round 1 year later. And now it looks
like it will be 8. The previous rounds envisioned the same thing.
If we don’t explicitly design a system that allows it to be open
applications we are destined to repeat ourselves.
The need for rounds is artificial. We create this by not allowing open
applications.
We all seem OK with a sunrise period when a TLD launches. A round is
exactly the same idea. It allows for applications during a period at the
start in order to deal with contentions.
Contentions only exist because we are not allowing open applications.
Oh, and this notion of priority and categories also all goes away if we just
allow open applications.
I want to be careful that we don’t layer on solving issues with convoluted
categories for a problem we created.
Rob
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert
< alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> >
Reply-To: " alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> " <
alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> >
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 9:31 AM
To: " gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> " <
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
Hi,
I have initially been a BIG fan of “fast tracking†certain categories –
and frankly would benefit myself (one of the strings I promote would fit
into 4 or even 5 of these suggested categories). But after much thinking I
must say: This smells like disaster! So I concur with Rob.
Especially as we would have to make sure that no “generic keyword basedâ€
term would be applied for (and fast-tracked) as either GEO or BRAND. Sneaky
elements will find a small geo-region identical to a generic string (think
“.barâ€) – obtainn the letter of non-objection – and get fast-tracked.
They then do NOT set up locality requirements and …… €¦ market to
“barsâ€. There is a geo location to almost every generic term.
Brands: there is no definition of a “brand†in regard to the DNS. At
minimum the “brand†had to have a TM in say 25 to 50 (arbitrary number)
countries since at least 20XX (ideally before 2012) – AND should NOT be
“genericâ€. If you arre basing your brand on a generic term: Fine. Great.
Your own choice. But please do not expect that you have a right on the
entire generic keyword space on top level in the DNS. Apply with everybody
else – and see whether theere is contention. In the real life “generic
term based Brand protection†works because you can exempt the term’s
natural meaning from being protected – in the DNNS there are no “Trademark
Goods and Services Classesâ€: unwittingly the generic term meaning would be
targeted, too! If you have a brand “sunâ€: GREAT! Just do not tell us no
one else has a right to apply for a gTLD “.sun†– but you. You haven’t
protected “SUN†froom being used – just for computers, or newspapers.
Who kknows: Maybe there are 75 Million Chinese people with the surname
“sun� Allow someone to apply for a gTLD for them.
And “communities†or “non-profits� NOT if their application is
based on a generic term! By fast-tracking them we deny others access. This
would create a HUGE mess – and liability for ICANN. ICANN woould get sued up
and down.
So there must be ONE application window in 2020 (or whenever it is) – once
the applications are all in: we might “side-track†GEOs or Brands IF
there is no contention. But that seems rather an implementation than a
policy issue, right?
As for the transition of “windows†(rounds) to “an ongoing process: I
like Jeff Neumann’s suggestion that once when in a certain round there are
only a few (or none?) contentions – we open the system up and allow real
time application submitting. Till then we have e.g. every two years,
annually or bi-annual “roundsâ€. Just not with an 8 years stop-gap in
between like now. Most of the “adjustment†to the Guidebook is due now
(between the 1st and the 2nd round). After that there will be fewer and
smaller “adjustments†– they could be added “on the flyâ€. I guess
thee 2nd round (2020) will take up all of ICANN’s capacity for say 2
years. So the 3rd round could be set 2 years after the 2nd, the 4th a year
after the 3rd, then biannual rounds. Just: We need certainty for future
applicants –“ and definite schedule!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: 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 Alan Greenberg
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:14 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
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
And in fact, categories could give us the ability to address the Brand issue
and not constrain them to rounds should we choose, just as we do not
constrain them with some of the other rules applicable to typical TLDs.
Alan
At 15/05/2017 09:58 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Greg,
Help me understand why you would not want to get to a state where anyone can
apply for a gTLD at any time ?
I believe this entire artificial “in rounds†that we are are doing now
is what is causing most of the issues.
I feel a lot of pressure is coming from Brands that missed the last round
and want their TLD. If we had an open TLD registration process, they could
have easily applied by now. I suspect that the entire reason for
“Categories•€ is to try and say we should proceed with one ahead of
another.
By doing it in rounds, we are creating the scarcity that causes most of the
contention and issues.
As I just joined the list, perhaps I have missed why categories are a good
idea. Can someone fill me in ?
Rob.
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>
Cc: Martin Sutton < martin at brandregistrygroup.org
<mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> >, Jeff Neuman
<jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >, " gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> " < gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
<mailto: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 think that's where we are trying to get to. Rather "rounds vs.
anyone can apply for a TLD at any time" is one of the big questions for this
WG. (I guess we know your preferred answer now....)
There are a number of good reasons for categories -- certainly enough not to
dismiss it out of hand. Turning the TLD space into a "high rollers" version
of the SLD space is a troubling idea, to say the least.
There were certainly problems with the community applications (not really a
separate "round") but something done poorly may be worth doing better. I'm
sure we have plenty of other horror stories from different parts of the New
gTLD Program and from different perspectives. We should learn from them,
rather than use them as an excuse to move away from them.
Greg
Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com> wrote:
I honestly can̢۪t see the purpose of categories.
If you think of the place we are trying to get to, where anyone can apply
for a TLD at any time, categories seems to be a waste of time.
The arguments for them seem to focus on these artificial Rounds we are
having, and somehow giving someone a leg up on someone else. I can just
imagine the loud screaming when someone games the system. Have we not
learned anything from the sTLD and community rounds we just went through ?
Rob.
From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <
martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> >
Date: Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com >
Cc: " gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> " <
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
That would be helpful.
I have difficulties reconciling the notion of ignoring categories, as it
caused no end of problems after applications were submitted and created
unnecessary delays. Where there are well-defined categories and a proven
demand, categories can be created and processes refined for that particular
category, especially where the operating model is very different to the
traditional selling /distribution to third parties.
Kind regards,
Martin
Martin Sutton
Executive Director
Brand Registry Group
martin at brandregistrygroup.org
On 15 May 2017, at 15:17, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com > wrote:
Thanks Kurt. Can you recirculate that article you wrote 6 months ago? It
may help our discussions later today.
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 <tel:%28703%29%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079 <tel:%28202%29%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw
From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org [
mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kurt Pritz
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 6:35 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan 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
Hi Everyone:
In reading the agenda for today’™s meeting, I read the spreadsheet
describing the different TLD types. (See,
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mA_hTUhLhJSsfcmoQwREtUqxykZ5KfJffzJAAhEvNlA/edit#gid=1186181551 )
.
It looks remarkably similar to a chart presented to the ICANN Board in 2010
or 2011 as the main argument for not adding to the categories of TLDs in the
last round because they would be problematic (read, “impossibleâ€) to
implement.
Even in this spreadsheet, I can argue whether most of the tick marks in the
cells apply in all cases. This means that each of the many tick marks
presents a significant barrier to: (1) getting through the policy discussion
in a timely manner, and (2) a clean implementation.
Categories of TLDs have always been problematic.
The single most important lesson from the 2003-04 sponsored TLD round was to
avoid a system where delegation of domain name registries was predicated
upon satisfying criteria associated with categories.
In the last round, the Guidebook provided for two category types: community
and geographic. In my opinion, the implementation of both was problematic:
look at the variances in CPE results and the difficulty with .AFRICA. This
wasn’t ¢t just a process failure, the task itself was extremely
difficult. Just how does an evaluation panel adjudge a government approval
of a TLD application if one ministry says, ‘yes’ and the other
’no’? T¢no’? This sort of issue is simple compared to
evaluating community applications.
The introduction of a number of new gTLD categories with a number of
different accommodations will lead to a complex and difficult application
and evaluation process (and an expensive, complicated contractual compliance
environment). It is inevitable that the future will include ongoing attempts
to create policy for new categories as they are conceived.
For those who want a smoothly running, fair, predictable gTLD program, the
creation of categories should be avoided.
Instead, the outcome of our policy discussion could be a process that
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web:
www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and
stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person
to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur
Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den
angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe,
Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so
bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu
setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email:
vgreimann at key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net /
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
www.domaindiscount24.com /
www.BrandShelter.com <http://www.brandshelter.com/>
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay
updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to
whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any
content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on
this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this
e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting
us by telephone.
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png"
Content-Description: image001.png
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png"; size=6497;
creation-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT";
modification-date="Wed, 17 May 2017 02:03:00 GMT"
Content-ID: <image001.png at 01D2CE90.2CAEC770>
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:yiAN6nY3WKAwaJA8gKnBFAR4vrVVOfReGOX+CZSg4oXe0ax7e+fYTDERq0v8wnjQsNE3BPmADjUemzpisNkNorjHTGtCHfh/6ojQL6S0XQhk/IpQbPwTJoxtVCKeq4ZZ9h6JAmWcyzBZVmH60Imntw==
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095);
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_____
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170518/602468cb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170518/602468cb/image001-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list