[Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13

[Alexander Schubert]

Kurt: I said initially that I think VISA should indeed own .visa - as they are so well known.And they do own the TLD .visa!They applied 7.5 years ago - and there is not a SINGLE domain online.How does the public benefit from that? What if after 10 years in the root they STILL haven't started to use the gTLD? The public waits another decade? But again: super well known, globally  famous brands should have their matching strings - generic or not. I agree. But a small shoe brand "SHANGHAI" invoking Spec 13? Why should they be allowed to block .shanghai domain registrations for 24 Million people in Shanghai?Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com> 
Date: 8/15/19  02:25  (GMT+02:00) 
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 

I’d like to chip in with two thoughts:One, I think we should discuss the value a TLD string and operator can bring to the domain name space rather than reducing the discussion whether it is a famous mark or a “generic” word. (Maybe in the next round we can outlaw the use of “generic” and go to “dictionary” as has been previously discussed.) Put another way, our job as policy makersis to perturb the current policy in a way that increases the value of domain name to the domain name space or the internet-using public.I think “visa” is a famous brand and a dictionary word. The question is which application would bring more value to the name space? The answer, of course, is, “it depends.” If Visa Inc. acquires .visa and uses the code of conduct exemption to provide services to it millions of customers, that is a lot of value and should be favored over a possible application for an operator of a generic .visa TLD. If Visa Inc. acquires .visa to protect its mark, not so much. Code of conduct exemptions should be based on a value-added service that require the exemption to be successful. Owning a trademark can be tangentially related (i.e., correlated) to providing value based on the exemption but is not necessary. This brings me to point Two. The current code of conduct stifles innovation; exemptions should be available to models (other than those owned by trademarks) that provide value. The are many entities that can add value that do not possess a trademark. Libraries can catalogue books using domains; companies can maintain inventories and manage logistics; museums can use domains to catalogue their art works and artifacts to make their objects more accessible. Neither should the code of conduct exemption be all or nothing. Partial exemptions should be available for TLDs to offer more than one product. By way of example (and for transparency) I work with the .ART registry that has developed a significant innovation but cannot offer it and “regular domain” because of ICANN rules. The code of conduct can remain in place for the use of domains as developed back in the 1900s but relaxed to encourage innovation. (Maybe we should change the titel form “code of conduct’ to "regulatory restrictions.”)Specification 13 was written as it is because trademark owners have great influence with ICANN and ICANN likes bright-line rules. We should aspire to something greater: that regulatory restriction exemptions are granted for those with a plan to utilize the TLD in a significant, value-added way. Sometime ago, we had an extensive discussion that the new gTLD policy should be augmented to encourage innovation. This is an opportunity to remove one of the strangleholds on it. Thank you for reading this.KurtOn Aug 14, 2019, at 4:23 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:Hi Martin,quoting from spec 11:"“Generic String” means a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others."Would you see "visa" being covered by spec 11? Is there another term for "temporary permission to enter a country" than "visa"?Thanks,AlexanderSent from my Samsung device-------- Original message --------From: Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org> Date: 8/15/19 00:57 (GMT+02:00) To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com> Cc: trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com, alexander at schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] - Specification 13 Following the email thread, it appears Alexander is focused on the term “Generic String TLD” referred to in Spec 13 but ignoring the definition quoted within Spec 11 that directly relates to this. I can see that Rubens has referred to this in his earlier response but wanted to flag again as Alexander seems to have ignored this in subsequent replies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190815/fa00316b/attachment-0001.html>