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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Fri Nov 22 19:54:53 UTC 2019

Hi Rubens,


I understand you. But how long more do you want to wait? 10 years? 25 years? If you can’t launch the string: someone else might be able. Create a white label registrar for example. There are many countries that do NOT have ICANN registrars. Latvia for example. Does that mean there should never be a .riga?








From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Freitag, 22. November 2019 12:26
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs





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. 











Em 20 de nov de 2019, à(s) 13:49:000, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto: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.







Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
 <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg> 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> https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos> 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/20191122/4f118619/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list