[Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications

[Rubens Kuhl]

Alexander,

All instances of what you described that I remember (I didn't check) were brands. I believe they all can be traced to a single consultant, and I imagine that the good performance of the 2012 Legal Rights Objection as a deterrence to squatting would prevent the need for it in subsequent procedures.

That said, seeing that brands did it in 2012 might lead to people attempting the same trick in generic terms, so we might need to tackle this anyway.


Rubens



> Em 8 de fev de 2019, à(s) 12:20:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> escreveu:
> 
> Thanks Steve,
> 
> I am  not sure this was discussed ever:
> 
> A number of applicants thought they were “clever” – and submitted TWO applications, one as “community priority” – so if they had no contention they could decide how to move forward (e.g. with the standard application, thus circumventing the community restrictions).
> 
> Essentially if smth like that ever happens again I suggest the elimination of BOTH applications. Has this been discussed yet?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alexander.berlin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Chan
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2019 6:59 PM
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] 2012 New gTLD Program - Remaining Applications
> 
> Dear WG Members,
> 
> Attached, please find the remaining applications from the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. ICANN org provided a spreadsheet that contained the remaining applications, along with basic status information (e.g., ICANN application status, evaluation result, contention set status). The WG Co-Chairs added additional information based on their analysis, as the basic status information does not provide full context; please see columns E and H as an attempt to provide some of that missing context. Notably:
> 
> In column E, we have  highlighted in orange applications that will not proceed but have not yet been officially withdrawn by the applicant
> In column H, we have highlighted in grey applications where we know additional information is needed to better understand the current status.
> 
> This document will be discussed briefly during the upcoming full WG call but given the late delivery relative to that call, is not intended to be discussed in a substantive manner.
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Steven Chan
> Policy Director, GNSO Support
> 
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
> Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800
> Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649
> 
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <https://learn.icann.org/> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.
> 
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/ <http://gnso.icann.org/en/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190208/6059cdba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 528 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190208/6059cdba/signature.asc>