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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Nov 21 22:32:53 UTC 2019



Domain names are only available for commercial use since 25 years now. In that respect 10 years is an INSANE long period. Add about 1 year after application plus 1,5 years that you have for contracting and testing: we are talking 12.5 years after you requested at ICANN to operate a new gTLD: that’s HALF of the entire time in history that domains were commercially available. If you can’t startup in that time you should not attempt to run a DNS resource.


Regarding “new business models”:


My policy wording says:    “Finalization of the Sunrise phase (if applicable) is requisite for contract renewal”. So the examples that you mentioned would all be fine and had no problems. If you do NOT have a sunrise period you will obviously have to state that in your application. If ICANN approves: all is fine.


Regarding the notion that “no problem exists”: As we speak consultants are romping around trying to “sell” big corporations generic keyword based gTLDs: to “safeguard” “their” verticals. You can buy the service of application submission, contracting and testing for just $ 50k (combined), plus application fees (probably $ 50k) and that’s it. All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does”. 


Is everybody here “OK” that entities can shot down entire verticals to stifle competition? 









From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marc Trachtenberg via Gnso-newgtld-wg
Sent: Donnerstag, 21. November 2019 14:29
To: kathy at kathykleiman.com; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs




I  don’t think  that this proposal is fundamental, basic, or incontrovertible and you should be careful about using words like “incontrovertible” to describe things that are your opinion.  First, why should someone lose their gTLD if they are still figuring out their business model or facing some challenges in implementation?  


Second, what does “use” mean?  What if a gTLD operator wanted to operate a business model that was not based on selling domain names – for example a social network or other platform providing services – and wanted the gTLD to be able to operate this platform in a secure space and just used one promotional second level name so that users could access the platform but would not offer second levels to third parties?  That would be quite innovative, and it has been stated innumerable times that one of the purposes of the new gTLD program was to foster innovation in the domain name space.  While there hasn’t been much innovation in new gTLDs, Alex’s proposal will ensure that there never will be and the only business model allowed for gTLDs other than .brands will be selling names.   There is no innate incontrovertible human right to be able to register any domain name in any gTLD and as Kristine pointed out, Alex’s proposal attempts to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.


Best regards,


Marc H. Trachtenberg
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
Tel 312.456.1020 

Mobile 773.677.3305

 <mailto:trac at gtlaw.com> trac at gtlaw.com |  <http://www.gtlaw.com/> www.gtlaw.com    



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 12:42 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs



Alexander's proposal below seems fundamental and basic, and almost incontrovertible. If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it.  That makes sense and is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.

I support. 

Best, Kathy

On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Alexander Schubert wrote:

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.








Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMDaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=uV1pyX-mNVD9P4TlLUWeknvls7QOv0a4lnbrjLruCZg&s=EVH2cDAg5pRW-i9jlVTCBo4AJqjNzKMlBxOYXY18B3s&e=> 
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMDaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=uV1pyX-mNVD9P4TlLUWeknvls7QOv0a4lnbrjLruCZg&s=JxweizR3VC-nDXRMCt3dyCD1otZ5qOKyB-8v4G7dKCo&e=> ) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMDaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=uV1pyX-mNVD9P4TlLUWeknvls7QOv0a4lnbrjLruCZg&s=k8UfJ6pXDHZ2XcYf_zkvOlGPGCsU42OXE_xY0avPxho&e=> ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster at gtlaw.com <mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com> , and do not use or disseminate the information.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191121/2d7c64ff/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6399 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191121/2d7c64ff/image001-0001.jpg>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list