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

Fri Nov 22 18:48:25 UTC 2019

We weren't then either, as you are well aware.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:46 PM Jim Prendergast <jim at galwaysg.com> wrote:

> But we didn’t have the benefit of the 2012 round like we do this go
> around.  We’re not making the up from scratch.
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 1:35 PM
> *To:* Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM>
> *Cc:* Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
>
>
> That is laughable.  We spent six years developing the last guidebook. Only
> to see ICANN change the rules in myriad ways after application fees were
> accepted. None of us should have any illusions that they will not do that
> again, upon whim of any government objector or Verisign.  Unless we take
> away the Board's discretion to do whatever they want whenever they want
> upon any whim they like.  I would be completely in favor of doing that, but
> we all know it is impossible.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 12:27 PM Jim Prendergast <jim at galwaysg.com> wrote:
>
> This is Exhibit A of why everything needs to be locked down and finalized
> BEFORE the application window opens.  We cannot have rules changing after
> applications have been submitted and ICANN has accepted application fees.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Rubens Kuhl
> *Sent:* Friday, November 22, 2019 12:26 PM
> *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs
>
>
>
>
>
> Alexander,
>
>
>
> I happen to be from an organisation that applied to 2 gTLDs in 2012 and
> still have launched them. What I need to point out is that bring this
> requirement on registries would also need requirements on ICANN.
>
>
>
> At the time we applied, it was said that vertical integration would not
> require two different legal entities; this was added in an AGB version
> after applications have been submitted.
>
>
>
> At the time we applied, there was no indication that then current
> registrars with RAA 2009 wouldn't be able to sell 2012 gTLDs; when the RA
> was finalised, this suddenly appeared. And since we had only 2009
> Registrars in our country, that meant no registrars.
>
>
>
> But as RAAs start expiring, we were hopeful that some registrars would
> become RAA 2013... what happened though is that all Brazilian registrars
> preferred dropping their accreditations instead of on boarding new,
> cumbersome requirements that were added to RAA mostly due to pressures from
> developed countries.
>
>
>
> So, ICANN Org failed us miserably in a lot of ways, and you are suggesting
> that even in that condition we would be obliged to launch expeditiously ?
>
>
>
> No, thanks. And if your intention is to widen the gap from "Global North"
> to "Global South", that's a sure way to do it. There is more to the world
> than Western Europe and North America.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> escreveu:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20191122/ccc7f5d7/attachment.html>