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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Aug 29 16:07:09 UTC 2019


Hi Susan,



Thanks for the remarks. Yes, I have not consulted the IRP and other accountability mechanism lists. Looking at icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/irp-en I don’t see anything more. But staff will tell us. 

Thanks,

Alexander






 

From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:43 PM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

 

All -  Please exercise caution with respect to this list.  Off the top of my head I can see a number of inaccuracies arising out of the existence of ongoing accountability mechanisms.  I would suggest you wait for the staff list rather than duplicating their work.

 

Susan Payne

Head of Legal Policy 

Valideus 

 

 

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: 27 August 2019 11:51
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

 

Anne,

 

The list that we received last time was without comments. So I took the liberty of compiling from the Applicant Status webpage (using the filters) a list of strings that might occur in “staff’s list” – and make remarks! Please: if any entry is incorrect, or entries are missing: correct it.

But after I have concluded my little research it seems that the ONLY 3 strings that aren’t either withdrawn, ineligible, denied (e.g. corp, mail, home) are these three:

 

*	Hotel (won CPE and is held up by contenders)
*	Web (VeriSign won the auction for an applicant, and that doesn’t sit well with others: still fighting over the issue!)
*	Webs (don’t “get it”: web.com won a string similarity objection, but it says in the online tool that it is “in contracting”?)

 

All other strings are either available again (.thai, .ram, .halal, etc; for those who love to burn their fingers: go for it!) or “banned” (.mail, .corp) or in contracting.

.hotel is a community application available for community members only. Trust me: they will NOT want to revert to “closed registry”. VeriSign will NOT have shelled out a Gazillion Dollars in order to revert to a “closed string”. So in regard to “pending strings from 2012”: I don’t see that any of the 3 wants to change to a closed string. Unless of course I have missed strings in my research. So my “gut feeling” of “less than 5” wasn’t THAT bad after all: 3 strings that potentially might be still “in the work” by the next round; and only these 3 COULD in theory try to “profit” from the new AGB. Those who are in contracting CAN’T – because the AGB is only finalized in a year – and they are NOW in contracting.

Here the research result (please do not rely on it; it was a 5 min research):


Availability

String

Applicant

Background


Soon delegated

MERCK

Merck Registry Holdings, Inc.

In ICANN auction in October


Soon delegated

AMAZON

Amazon EU S.à r.l.

Seemingly won the TLD shortly ago


Soon delegated

アマゾン

Amazon EU S.à r.l.

"Amazon" in Japanese. Should in theory be solved then, too!


Soon delegated

MUSIC

DotMusic Limited

Contention solved and right now in  contracting


Soon delegated

CPA

American Institute of Certified Public Acc.

Prevailed and is in Pre-Delegation Testing now


Soon delegated

SPA 

Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council LTD

In contracting

				
				

Accountability Mechanism

HOTEL 

 HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l

Won CPE; held up by contender


Accountability Mechanism

WEB

NU DOT CO LLC

Won auction via VeriSign; held up by contender


???

WEBS 

 Vistaprint Limited

Web.com applicant objected and won  string confusion!

			
Strangely the application status tool says "in contracting"

				
				

Available again

THAI

Better Living Management Company Limited

Not approved: Available for application!


Available again

  PERSIANGULF

Asia Green IT System   Ltd. Sti.

GAC Warning - not approved: Available for application!


Available again

HALAL 

Asia Green IT System Bilgisayar San. Ltd. 

Religious term - not approved: Available for application!


Available again

GCC

GCCIX WLL

Opposed by Gulf Coop. Council (GCC): Available for application!


Available again

RAM

FCA US LLC.

A God in India! Available for application!

				

Banned String

CORP

	Forever Banned; not available for application!


Banned String

MAIL

	Forever Banned; not available for application!


Banned String

HOME

	Forever Banned; not available for application!



Thanks,

Alexander

 

 

 

 

From: Aikman-Scalese, Anne [mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com] 
Sent: Dienstag, 27. August 2019 00:08
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:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> 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:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> 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>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190829/2cf2a466/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list