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

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Tue Nov 26 16:54:09 UTC 2019

Mark,it is in the interest of the "community" if minorities are protected. Why are there disabled-access laws; when they only benefit a tiny portion of society? Because by treating disabled well we as society fare well. Same goes for restricted gTLDs.Brand gTLDs: Trademarks aid consumers in identifying a certain manufacturer. If I want a Porsche; then I want one made in Germany. Not in China. I want one that goes 200 miles/h; and that doesn't desintegrate at that speed. Consequently it is in the Interest of the Community if for example .apple is with APPLE computers - and I buy Apple, Inc products there; NOT knockoffs from China..edu and .gov are restricted - which is benefiting not just Universities or the U.S. Government; but the Internet Community as whole.As for your assertation regarding testing: do you have ANY supporting evidence for the notion that ICANN wanted to collect fees? And regarding "jammed up" qeue: wouldn't that rather support the OPPOSITE: allow those who have no plans of use to wait; which frees up capacity for those who want to startup fast? The real reason for both is founded in the 2007 PDP - which CLEARLY had a use requirement. During the PDP implementation we just couldn't agree on how to police "non-use". But at least for those who apply with a sunrise period it's simple: if you have a sunrise period in your application - you need to execute it. If you don't: no contract renewal. Why do we even have to discuss this? Don't promise a sunrise - then fail on delivery. It's A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION. If someone violates a contract so blatantly - why would you grant a contract renewal? Alexander.berlinSent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com 
Date: 11/26/19  11:32  (GMT-05:00) 
To: alexander at schubert.berlin, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new	gTLDs	Summary 

Where does it say anywhere that the registry operator is operating the gTLD for the benefit of the entire internet community?  Clearly this is not the case.  Just look at Community
 applications – these are intended to serve a particular and very specific small segment of the entire internet community.  Brand TLDs are another example.  Yet another example is closed generics, which were not excluded in the AGB although they were later
 when people complained.   At the end of the day registry operators are private actors who are driven by profit and other motivations. 

The reason ICANN pushed people through testing and delegation is so that the queue wasn’t jammed up and so that it could start collecting its registry fees.
gTLDS are not natural resources that everyone has a right to and you are making a false analogy to public land.  If the DNS really belongs to the internet community then this
 should apply  to second level domains as well since they comprise the vast majority of the DNS.   Taking your argument to its logical end, there should be a usage requirement for second level domains.  You want to give up the ones you are not using?

Marc H. Trachtenberg
Greenberg Traurig, LLP | 77 West Wacker Drive | Suite 3100 | Chicago, IL 60601
Tel 312.456.1020 
Mobile 773.677.3305
trac at gtlaw.com |



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10:11 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary





I would like to invoke ICANN's core mission and the outcome of the 2007 PDP.


New gTLDs are NOT "assets"; and nobody "owns" them. You have to nicely request being allowed to operate a new gTLD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE INTERNET COMMUNITY. You are NEVER awarded "ownership": it's a wet fantasy of the Brand Lobby. Which
 part of ICANN's bylaws, it's mission statement, the 2012 AGB or the RA support that outrageous notion?


The 2007 PDP more than clearly made statements that constitute a "use requirement". Either we change those 2007 PDP provisions - or we honor them.


Why do you think that you get your contract CANCELLED - just for not engaging in "testing" (adding the TLD to the root)? If your made-up assertions would be right: then after contracting there wouldn't be ANY obligations at all. 


We SEVERELY punish applicants who do not contract within 9 month (application withdrawal); we SEVERELY punish registries for not testing (contract cancelation after 9 month) - and we SHOULD severally punish if a registry doesn't follow
 through with its operation mode laid out in their application: if a registry has a Sunrise in their application - then they have to execute it. If there is no sunrise - then all is fine. I do really not understand how this is so complicated to understand.


Imagine I go to the city council and ask to operate a piece of public land in the city center. And I lure them in by claiming that the operation  (a mall or hotel) would enrich the city's attractiveness. The city awards me a (super cheap)
 10 year lease contract of the land (based on my promises) - and I merely convert it into a big construction site (bulldoze it down within 1 month). Then for 10 years I would do NOTHING. Instead I wait for somebody to buy my contract. Or I ran out of money
 - and can't follow through with my plans. You as a citizen: would you want that the city extends that lease another 10 years?


The DNS belongs to The Internet Community. You apply to run a piece of this essential infrastructure. You make promises  (e.g. that you start up with a sunrise). If you do not follow through with your promises;  then after a DECADE something
 should happen.


If you can't commit to a Sunrise within a prescribed period of time - say so in your application. But don't promise - then not deliver. 








Sent from my Samsung device

-------- Original message --------
From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>

Date: 11/26/19 10:11 (GMT-05:00) 
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>,
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org 
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary 

Dear Jeff, all
Even quite involved in other groups with no much time to dedicate to this one, I am reading and here my points:
I totally agree with  the side NOT in FAVOR of the proposal.  First think we can understand all the reasons anyone have to keep a not used TLD is a lot pretentious from our
 side. If the applicant was approved for whole process and had paid for it, if applicant use it there will be rules to be followed but if he decide to just to keep it, we ( ICANN) has no say about it. The TLD is now a asset belonging to such winner applicant.

I also agree that too much restriction just reduce the chance of South hemisphere candidate to face the challenge.
Thank you for all your work on this issue.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 
Sorry for any typos. 


Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
Date: Monday, November 25, 2019 at 12:31
To: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Use Requirement for 2nd round new gTLDs Summary


This conversation demonstrates exactly why it is so difficult to put into place restrictions like a “use” requirement.  In trying to sum up where we
Unless exempt, you must complete a Sunrise phase prior to contract renewal (10 years).  Spec 13 Registries would be exempt from this requirement.
What is the problem we are trying to Solve?

From Alex’s e-mails, it seems like the argument is that not “using” a TLD for an extended amount of time essentially takes that TLD out of circulation and that “someone
 else might be able” to use it; “All kinds of big corps will be talked into “secure your killer keyword – before your competition does.”

From Kathy K.: “If you are going to ask for a gTLD space, use it” and this “is a underlying premise of much of the Applicant Guidebook with its roll-out provisions.”

From Christopher:  “to s to strongly discourage, indeed penalise, the warehousing of un-used strings.

Supported by Jorge
From those not in favor of the Proposal

Kristine:  No one has agreed this is even an issue or problem; This forces everyone into a singular model (namely always selling domain names to third parties.”;
 ICANN already has a number of restrictions that stand in the way of innovation; “Let’s stop accusing businesses of bad faith (claims that the intent was to “shut down a vertical” are just that) just because
 they haven’t found the right niche given all the ICANN business restrictions.”

Marc:  What does “use” mean?; This would not foster innovation; This would only ensure one business model; “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.”; No evidence that corporations are trying to shut down a vertical

Maxim:  What is the problem we are trying to solve?; There were a number of things that happened in 2012 round which impacted Registries plans for launch

Supported by Martin

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, 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/20191126/977c83a6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list