[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated

[Jeff Neuman]

Alexander,

The only option that the group has been seriously considering in your scenario is closest to A.  Remember that there is a a string similarity check during the initial evaluation phase.  If during that check a newly applied for string is found to be similar to either an existing delegated TLD, or a string which is still pending from a previous round, then in the case of the former the application will not proceed, and in the latter, it will be on hold until the final disposition of the similar string in the previous round.

So I think this is similar to what you were saying below.  Let me know if I am misunderstanding.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alexander Schubert
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 3:40 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated

Jeff;

Both scenarios still have to reconcile with string similarities for not-yet-delegated (yet not withdrawn) strings.

Imagine the .merck contention set was still undecided by the start of the next round. Irrelevant which of both suggested  "identical string policies" we adapt - how do we handle string similarity of 2nd round strings with not yet withdrawn 1st round strings (e.g. a 2nd round .merk application)? Obviously the 2nd round string similarity evaluation would have to include these not-yet-delegated (yet not withdrawn) strings. And then?
A) Put the newly applied for string on hold? (Until the previous round applications are withdrawn - or delegated)
B) Allow them to join the previous round contention set? (Bonkers)
C) Let them become a new gTLD - which would require the withdrawal of the previous round "similar" (not yet withdrawn) strings? (Even more bonkers)

Obviously B) and C) would be highly unfair.

A policy needs to be in place. I say A)!

Thanks,

Alexander



Sent from my Samsung device


-------- Original message --------
From: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>>
Date: 9/4/19 22:10 (GMT+02:00)
To: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated


Anne,

During the call that Susan is referring to Susan volunteered to draft some language to flesh out her proposal.  And although it did not seem to have a huge amount of support on that call, she was asked to send the proposal around to the list to see if it has traction.

As you have pointed out, decisions are not generally made with just one phone call.  Discussions can and should happen on the mailing list.  Susan has responded with her proposal on the list and we can see which version has support.  The options are:


  1.  Prohibit Applications for strings where the applications are still pending (for whatever reason) – As per Susan’s proposal; or
  2.  Allow applications in for those strings, but do not process them any further than the reveal stage, unless and/or until the applications from the previous round that match those strings have had their final disposition.

Jeff Neuman
Senior Vice President
Com Laude | Valideus
D: +1.703.635.7514
E: jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 7:09 PM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated

Susan – sorry for the confusion but based on Jeff’s request, I had understood you were “fleshing out” the part that the WG might be able to agree on – which was that prior round applications should be “completed” prior to subsequent round applications for the same string being considered.    I’m pretty sure the recording will confirm this.
Anne

From: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 4:06 PM
To: Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal on Prioritising Applications - prohibition on applying in a later round for a string from a prior round which has not yet been delegated

[EXTERNAL]
________________________________
Anne, This is based on the comments that my company and INTA had made. I was asked on the call, including by you, to flesh this out so that the group could see what such a proposal would look like, and whether it would garner sufficient support. Here it is.

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Sep 2019, at 17:57, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <
________________________________
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh, Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190905/820d4f89/attachment-0001.html>