[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs

[Alexander Schubert]

Dear Jeff,

 

As discussed on the call yesterday here a brief suggestion regarding a “use requirement”. First a summary of my suggestion:

 

The new RA (Registry Agreement) should contain a clause that denies contract renewal if registries have not had a Sunrise registration phase (Spec-13 Brand Registries would be exempted from this clause).

 

Here my rationale for this:

 

Obviously the 2007 PDP demanded a use requirement. Hence currently registries face steep penalties for not contracting (application will be withdrawn) and not testing/entering the root (cancelation of the contract). 

 

Let’s be cognizant of the 3 gTLD categories that emerged in 2012:

1.      Spec 13 gTLDs (Brands)

2.      Geo gTLDs (mainly cities)

3.      All others 

 

We can’t always find “one size fits all” solutions – and claim that  in absence of a global solution we will not create ANY solution at all. That said: I can’t speak for the category 1. And as Martin Sutton said on the Monday GNSO call: if “use” was defined by “number of domains”: nothing more easy than registering a number of domains. So yes: for brand gTLDs it’s nifty to “define” a “use requirement” – maybe someone else can come up with a solution for Spec-13 registries.

 

BUT: For categories 2 and 3 I think the solution is simple! We already steeply penalize if the prospective registry doesn’t contract or engage in testing. There are grace periods to do so (I think 9 month). We could use the same grace period for “startup” – which is opening the string up for registrations in Sunrise!

 

At BARE minimum we should put into the new RA (Registry Agreement) that failure for categories 2 and 3 (non-Spec-13 registries) to startup (start sunrise) WILL be a reason to deny contract renewal! A DECADE of not starting up should be a clear sign of failure. 

 

This solution is NOT impacting Spec 13 applicants. We can discuss separately whether or not we wish to add a “use requirement” for them as well. This solution would also NOT impact 2012 round new gTLDs.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander.berlin

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191120/3affc25f/attachment.html>