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

Vanda Scartezini vanda at scartezini.org
Mon May 22 17:53:39 UTC 2017


Not only yours Alan, but Rubens’ questions is, in my view relevant to find answer.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
HAPPY 2017!




From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 9:40 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

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

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

Alan



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


Greg,

Do you think I was suggesting FCFS inside a round ????

That’s not the case at all.   I am suggesting do a round, where everyone who applies during the round window is equal.   Then, the second the round end, applications are available on a FCFS basis.   Of course, if a string was applied for IN the round, it would take precedence over any other application filled following the round.

And all applications in the round would be treated as equals in terms of filing times.

Rob

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:48 PM
To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed Agenda: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group, 15 May 2017 at 15:00 UTC

I would say that current GNSO Policy has FCFS outside the round -- i.e., every application in the round is ahead of any (not yet applied for) application outside the round , but every application in the round is treated equally (with the exception of community applications, which are more equal than other applications).

Rubens' third point is substantially similar to the proposition in my email.  Great minds, etc.

Greg

Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>> wrote:

I would like to comment generically in this thread, so please don't see the below content as what I'm replying to.

- Current GNSO Policy foresees rounds, but FCFS inside the round. So if we don't like that, we need to change the policy, even if AGB said something different.
- The round x continuous discussion is between alternatives that are more similar than people seem to believe
- One real question is whether application submission time is factored into a contention set decision (if in so-called rounds) or preclusive of future applications for the same string (if in so-called continuous mode). Which can develop into a follow-up question of whether after an application is published, does it allow new applications to be submitted to compete with that application ?

I believe that if we answer those questions, whatever comes after are just implementation decisions.


Rubens

Em 17 de mai de 2017, Ã (s) 18:40:000, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.com>> escreveu:

Greg,

What would roundless continuous applications look like if not FCFS ?   Perhaps it is the FCFS term that is causing irritation.

Here is what I mean when I use it.

The TLD is NOT taken.
The TLD has no previous application in process.
An application is received for the TLD.
ICANN starts its evaluation process and starts running down the agreed upon path we have now (or will have for the next round).
If the application passes all the tests, objections etc, then the applicant enters into a contract with ICANN and the TLD is delegated.

I am NOT suggesting any different process than if a TLD in a round had only one applicant.  It would be identical.

Rob

From: < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 5:33 PM
To: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.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

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<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto: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<tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct
202-559-8750<tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax
202-255-6172<tel:(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-bounces at icann.org> [mailto: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:16 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: 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 know the Dawn Donut concept, but love the name!



On May 17, 2017, at 2:10 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:

Greg, I am very familiar with Dawn Donut and it is really about the first user in a U.S. geographic location and whether or not damages are available or merely injunctive relief.

I understand “Seniority” as a term of art related to EU national filings in particular where Seniority claims can be recorded against a subsequently registered EUTM so you can let the national registration go and not have to pay to renew the national filings.  (pros and cons there)

“Priority”  is about dates established in relation to Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol filings.

I am only talking about first to use under the common law and Intent-To-Use under U.S. TM applications.  These establish prior claims as to that list of goods or services which are either in use or in the Intent-To-Use application (as long as the intent is bona fide).

Forbidding FCFS forever in new gTLD applications SIGNIFICANTLY disadvantages the little guy.  That would be the net effect if “rounds” are the established method forever.  We would thus establish a dichotomy – a Great Divide of registries thatt are either “too big to fail” or else “too small to succeed”.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image006.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/>

From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Cc: Rob Hall; Jeff Neuman; Alan Greenberg; Christa Taylor; Volker Greimann; 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

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<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>> wrote:
Greg,
Isn’t trademark law itself an FCFS system in the U.S?  You either use the mark first, or you file Intent-to-Use so everyone is on notice as to the goods or services you list.

Extreme example in relation to TLDs that are not FCFS:  an entrepreneur with a creative business model wants to file for an .iwatch TLD for a service that rates movies and TV programs by demographics – age, gender, interest, etc.  (Of courrse he or she may sell ads.)  But then a big company that makes or sells watches says, “hey wait, I don’t want that one to go to someone else – I’m going to appply for .iwatch too and we’ll see who wins.”    Or a big company that just competes with this sort of rating service just says, “hey, we can outbid this possible new entrant – let’s apply and shut themm down.”  This is a system that thwarts creativity.

It’s just a big string contention mess and makes operating a TLD more expensive.   AND the little guy NEVER wins.  You can’t base an LRO on an Intent—To-Usee application so as the little guy, you are TOAST.  (Your investors know this so they  won’t front the application fee for the TLD or co-sign your start-up bank loan.)
Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image003.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://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<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

What we have now is not a land rush.  FCFS would not precisely be a land rush, but it would share the emblematic concept of whoever gets to the [plot of land/TLD] first claims it.  In a sense it would be worse than the land rush of the 19th Century, since at least there was the same starting line for everyone and everyone with an interest in the land was well aware of what was going on.

At precisely high noon, thousands of would-be settlers make a mad dash into the newly opened Oklahoma Territory to claim cheap land.

On March 3, 1889, Harrison announced the government would open the 1.9 million-acre tract of Indian Territory for settlement precisely at noon on April 22. Anyone could join the race for the land, but no one was supposed to jump the gun. With only seven weeks to prepare, land-hungry Americans quickly began to gather around the borders of the irregular rectangle of territory. Referred to as “Boomers,” by the appointed day more than 50,000 hopefuls were living in tent cities on all four sides of the territory.

The events that day at Fort Reno on the western border were typical. At 11:50 a.m., soldiers called for everyone to form a line. When the hands of the clock reached noon, the cannon of the fort boomed, and the soldiers signaled the settlers to start. With the crack of hundreds of whips, thousands of Boomers streamed into the territory in wagons, on horseback, and on foot.  All told, from 50,000 to 60,000 settlers entered the territory that day. By nightfall, they had staked thousands of claims either on town lots or quarter section farm plots. Towns like Norman, Oklahoma City, Kingfisher, and Guthrie sprang into being almost overnight.

An extraordinary display of both the pioneer spirit and the American lust for land, the first Oklahoma land rush was also plagued by greed and fraud. Cases involving “Sooners”–people who had entered the territory before the legall date and time–overloaded courts for years to come. Thee government attempted to operate subsequent runs with more controls, eventually adopting a lottery system to designate claims.

<image004.png>

P.S.  In reading a bit about the 19th century land rushes of the American West, I realized the insensitivity inherent in using the term.  In most if not all cases, the land rushes were into "Indian Territory" and were open only to white Americans.  Of course, the land in many cases was not truly unoccupied or unowned, the claims of Native Americans were simply not recognized, trampled on or revoked in order to "open" the West.

Greg Shatan
C: 917-816-6428<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto: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<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 11:55 AM
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Cc: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> >, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >, Christa Taylor <christa at dottba.com<mailto:christa at dottba.com>>, Volker Greimann < vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, " 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

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<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto: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<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>
_____________________________
<image005.png>
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
One South Church Avenue, Suite 700
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
lrrc.com<http://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<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 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<tel:(917)%20816-6428>
S: gsshatan
gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto: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<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:(703)%20635-7514>
M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:(202)%20549-5079>
@Jintlaw


From: gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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 Rob Hall
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:33 PM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >; Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com<mailto:christa at dottba.com>>; 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>; 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

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<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:27 PM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.com>>, "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>, 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com<mailto:christa at dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, " 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

Rob, YOU may not be advocating FCFS to start with, but this WG has been going on for 15 months and that HAS been advocated. So much so that we are not allowed to refer to however/whenever there will be a further release of GTLDs as a "round".
Alan
At 16/05/2017 10:03 PM, Rob Hall wrote:
Anne,

To be clear, no one is advocating FCFS to start off.   It is only being suggested AFTER the next round ends.  So that after we have dealt any pent up demand, we move to a rolling registration of FCFS.

I think the objection I hear most is how can it be monitored.   The reality is that it takes so many months for ICANN to move through the process that I don̢۪t believe it will really be an issue.
However, we could just have ICANN issue the list of applications once a month, or once a quarter even, to make it easier to track.

When they announce is not related to when the application is received and the priority it gets in a FCFS – after thee round- model.
Rob

From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 6:08 PM
To: 'Christa Taylor' <christa at dottba.com<mailto:christa at dottba.com>>, 'Volker Greimann' < vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>>, Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com<mailto:rob at momentous.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

What about a hybrid approach?  FCFS is a terrible idea when no application has been permitted for over 5 years.  There is “pent-up†demanemand.   It is also a terrible idea in terms of ICANN staff resources.   Personally (and obviously not a view of the IPC), I would see it this way:

1.       We know GAC will advise Community Priority Round based on EC Report and Copenhagen Communique.  It would take 60% of the Board to reject that public policy advice and 2/3 of the Board to reject GNSO Council Advice to the contrary.  Will the Board act in this situation or just tell GAC and GNSO to “work it out†?  Why noy not “cut to the chase†and work it out with the Ghe GAC now ?   All Objection processes should apply.  PICs have to be made in connection with Community applications and they can’t be revoked or it vo voids the registry agreement.    It’s„¢s up to Track 3 to develop more policy on Community applications but watch out that we don’t trample on certertain rights by stating that a Community application has to meet a “social good†requirement.  ââ‚“Community†is also about freedom of association, o or in this case, freedom of “virtual associationââ‚€ .

(Please note GAC may even include IGOs and Governmental Organization applications in its public policy Advice for priority rounds.   No idea what applies as to IGOs and GOs in terms of definition and PICs.   Could an LRO be successful against a Governmental Organization application for  a geo name?  Is there any way to work this out now?  ICANN has got to get way more efficient in resolving policy differences before they get to the Board.   And would this free up the process for geo name applications if no application is made by a Governmental Organization during this window?   Could there be an “estoppel†factor if geo name not covered by old old version of AGB?)

2.      Applications from Brands РYes, I favor a wiindoow for brands.  Why?  Because it̢۪s al all easier under Spec 13 and I want the investment that brands have made in the marketing of brand names that correspond with potential TLD strings to pay off.  (Yes, I am a trademark lawyer.)  Objection procedures still apply Рe.g. string confusion, community objection, legal rigghts, limited public interest, etc.    Applications for same brand passing initial evaluation process would go into string contention.  After the contract award, a brand may only transfer to a third party acquiring all or substantially all its stock or assets, the trademark, and the good will associated with the brand, and assuming all obligations of the registry, including PICs if any.

3.      Open Window of Six Months – ICANN takes all ccomers and applications compete.  String contention and all objection procedures apply.

4.      Six months after # 3 – FFCFS - No window – all types of applications welcomee - FFirst Come, First Served, (no window but we need a public notice process as to strings applied for to trigger notice for objections).

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese
Of Counsel
520.629.4428<tel:(520)%20629-4428> office
520.879.4725<tel:(520)%20879-4725> fax
AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto: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<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

Lots of different perspectives so thought I̢۪d add another.

Appearears as though categories, priorities, etc. creates concerns around gaming the system.   Perhaps trying to deal with the elephant in the room would be the more direct approach.  How do we prevent gaming?  For instance, what if there was no private auction process or if the registry could potentially lose ownership of the TLD if it changed its operations to a different purpose than applied for or the TLD was sold within a short period of time afterwards?   I̢۪m not saying th that these are solutions but just trying to provoke a different perspective/thought.

Cheers,

Christa

From: 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<mailto:rob at momentous.com>>; 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

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><mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM
To: Rob Hall <rob at momentous.com><mailto:rob at momentous.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

Well yes, Rob, your TLD was a special snowflake that cannot realistically be compared to most other TLDs though, can it?

Am 16.05.2017 um 17:31 schrieb Rob Hall:
Volker,

Your statement is NOT true in any TLD that had a round first.

Many TLD̢۪s had ad a round prior to FCFS that served to handle the load of the rush.

We did exactly that, and had absolutely no rush in the first day of FCFS.  Not any.  There was no point.  You could have applied yesterday just as today.

Rob

From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-systems.net><mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:11 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

 I am always surprised when First come First served becomes a discussion about the best technology.   That only occurs when you artificially create demand, like we are doing in the rounds, or like we are doing in the deleting domain space.
 Domains are registered every day on a first come first served basis in all the new gTLD̢۪s.
Actually, when you look at the curves for most existing new gTLDs, excepting those that run regular "free promotions", you will find that the majority will have about half or more of their overall registrations happen in the first few hours or days.
Opening the gates will always create an initial rush that the fastest will benefit from most.
Another issue with a continuous process is that of monitoring. With rounds, it is essentially quite easy for potentially affected parties to look at what is there and then chose whether an objection is warranted or needed. With an open free for all, those organizations would have to perpetuate that monitoring and constantly have to waste time and ressources to make that decision.
That is nice if you sell such monitoring services, but not cost effective for those affected.
From: <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 10:54 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

Rob,
I agree to a degree. But what with “free market access†and “competition†ion†? I assume we face about 10,000 applications within 3 month after we open the floodgates.  Doesn’t matmatter whether it is a “round†or an “ongoin“ongoing process†– thhe number of applications wonâ€Ã¢â‚¬™t change.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20170522/24af8985/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list