[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

[Aikman-Scalese, Anne]

Thanks Jeff – I appreciate your efforts to get the list finalized with GDD approval and sent around again.  (I apologize as I did not know that I was crossing any lines by asking staff for information.)

Your list of 4  “possible outcomes” in the hypothetical case of an application for .neuman makes sense to me.  I’ll look for those assumptions re possible outcomes in Susan’s upcoming proposed high level agreement language.
Thank you,
Anne

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 3:49 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>; Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Anne,

I know that ICANN staff is working on that list and should have it posted shortly as they are awaiting some review from GDD staff.  I have also asked that they put it on a Google Sheet with a link off of the Wiki so that we do not have to keep getting new Excel Docs when there are updates.

However, I want to point out that ICANN policy staff looks to the leadership of the group to let it know which action items are for them and the priority of getting them done.  Therefore, please do not direct any requests to ICANN policy staff, GDD, etc., but rather to Cheryl and I, and we will be accountable for deciding whether the requests should be fulfilled, and the priority of treating those requests.  If they fail to be delivered for any reason, it should be us (the leaders) that are accountable.  ICANN policy staff work tremendously hard to support us and do an amazing job.  They have been a little short-handed lately due to their summer holidays, vacations, family situations, etc., but their support has never wavered.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

P.S. Alexander, I will respond to your e-mail separately.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:08 PM
To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

The 2012  list previously provided to us by staff contained far more than 5 strings.  I am not sure why I keep having to ask for this list to be recirculated.  Steve?  Julie?  Trang?

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 1:52 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Hi,

seems there are right now less than 5 strings not completed - and presumably these will find completion till the next application round starts. IF there should be still a string undelegated: obviously not available until withdrawn.

Otherwise I would expect both application rounds to be SEPARATED completely:
No 2012 application can invoke any 2nd round policy elements. They can withdraw and apply again of course.

More interesting question: if in a few years the first delegated generic keyword based brand TLDs (.smart!) become ten years old; but aren't used: we need to determine how to release them back into the pool of available strings. Blocking a geo-name or a generic keyword for your "brand" - then not even USING IT: how is THAT serving the Internet User? Maybe AtLarge has an opinion here? .smart uses TWO domains right now. WOW. They needed to block the ENTIRE NAMESPACE; to use TWO domains after +SEVEN years? And two domains in use is actually more than average. Most brands don't have ANY domain in active use. They clocked up the system - asked for priority numbers in the lottery - then never USED their loot?

Unused generic term & geo-name based "brand"-gTLDs (Spec 13) should not be eligble for renewal - and need to be made available again. Do we have any policy in this regard?

Thanks,

Alexander



Sent from my Samsung device


-------- Original message --------
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Date: 8/26/19 22:49 (GMT+02:00)
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round
Hi Jeff – Do we have Susan’s draft language on your first point yet?  (You may recall that there were even discussions about PROHIBITING new applications for the same string as some still pending from 2012 –that was not agreed so Susan is working on a statement that 2012 string application processing must be complete before any new application for that string would be considered.  HOWEVER – again here is the “rub” – When you say 2012 string applications have to be “completed”, what are you saying about the policy that applies to those?    What if the pending strings from 2012 don’t meet current new gTLD policy but they did not violate that policy as of the time of application?  We can only skirt this issue for so long.  Are 2012 strings going to be allowed to update to current gTLD policy in order to get authorization to proceed or not?  Or are you saying GNSO Council will have to launch another PDP for that purpose?

From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 12:43 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Anne,

Where has it been proposed that applications from 2012 get priority?  I am not aware of any recommendation that we have made that gives “priority” to any applicants from 2012.  We did recommend that any applications that were still outstanding for a string that is applied from in a subsequent round be completed.

With respect to Exclusive Generics, the Board resolution on this matter stated that any applications that wanted to maintain their “exclusive generic” status would be “deferred to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round…”   They did not state that any of those applications would get priority.  However, there were no applications that were deferred from the last round.

If we did allow some form of Exclusive Generic in the next round, then those rules would only apply to new applicants for TLDs.  Discussing what happens to TLDs from 2012 that wanted to be Exclusive Generics, but ended up opening their TLDs because of the Board Resolution is not within the topics contained within our Charter.  So yes if we wanted to discuss that issue we would need an amendment to our charter to allow us to tackle that subject.  The GNSO could then either grant our request or farm that issue out to a separate group.  That is within their discretion.

This is no different than any other changes we recommend where applicants from the past round would want the same things.  For example, if we accept changes to the code of conduct, the COI, reserved names, agreement, etc., the existing registries would not get the benefit of those changes unless the changes go through a PDP that has jurisdiction over those issues.   All Applications / TLDs are treated according the to rules for the round in which they applied.  This is true regardless of whether they have launched yet or not.

I hope this clears things up.



Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 2:55 PM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: RE: Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

Thanks Jeff.  Your reasoning below is not consistent with what has been proposed in relation to giving priority to applications from the 2012 round that have not been withdrawn.  (How is it that this “priority” is in scope for our WG but nothing else re 2012 applicants is in scope?   AND if I applied for a Closed Generic and didn’t get it in 2012, why should I have to require another PDP authorization from GNSO Council in order to be treated similarly to new applicants and convert to a Closed Generic?  (I believe some open registries that won contention sets in 2012 may not have not have actually launched yet.  Why would we say that whether or not they can launch as a Closed Generic is up to GNSO Council?)
Thank you,
Anne


From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 5:27 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Thanks all.  We have already got a number of people signed up for the group.  I expect substantive discussions on this topic to start this week.  So, it is not too late to join.  But remember that if you join, the expectation is that we will attempt to find a compromise solution that we all can live with (if possible).

You can view the member list for the small group here:  https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Members+New+gTLD+%3A+Topic+of+Closed+Generics  Please allow a day or two to pass before seeing your name on the list if you just volunteered over the weekend or today.

We will not be talking about Closed Generics in our next meeting tomorrow (late tonight for some of us).


Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 11:01 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

All,

There has been a lot of discussion in the past 24 hours or so on the applicability of our work on the 2012 applications.  Some have expressed concerns about the “fairness” of establishing a policy or new procedures for subsequent rounds when Closed Generics were not allowed in 2012.

The applicable Board Resolution covering Closed Generics required the 2012 applicants for Closed Generics to do one of three things.  Applicants could have withdrawn their applications completely, signed the then-current Registry Agreement which did not allow Closed Generics, or could have deferred their applications for consideration in a subsequent round.   As we covered on the call on Thursday, all of the applicants chose either to convert their applications to open TLDs or withdraw their applications completely.  There were NO applicants that elected to defer their applications to any future round.

Therefore, although in theory we could have had some issues that we needed to address involving applicants in the 2012 round, the reality is that we do not have any such issues.  To address the arguments about fairness of any new policy recommendations on applicants from the previous round, all we can say is that we need to focus on what the right policy should be first without the consideration of the fairness or unfairness to previous applicants from having different rules.  If we as a group determine that the right policy is something other than what happened in 2012, then it will by up to the GNSO Council to either set up a new group to deal with that issue or to refer the issue to this group at a later date.  But for now, as some have stated, that issue is out of scope for our group.

The reality is that there are many things that this group is considering which could produce results that may treat new applicants differently than previous round applicants.  Some of those changes may be favorable to the new applicants and some less favorable.  The same is true with respect to previous applicants.  If we did not make any changes to policy or implementation for fear of the impact on previous or new applicants, no changes would ever be made.  The point is that we need to decide what is the right thing to do, point out to the GNSO Council the potential impacts, and then leave it to the Council on what the next steps should be.


________________________________

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.
________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

________________________________

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/20190826/8eafde2a/attachment-0001.html>