[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: ICANN Application Status

Wed Oct 28 10:08:38 UTC 2020

Hi Anne

I definitely agree:

“For example, an applicant could apply in the next round for numerous Closed Generic strings and take the position that no other applicant in subsequent rounds could apply for that string while it is negotiating and contesting ICANN decisions not to delegate Closed Generics.”

It seems to me that some view new gTLDs as equivalent to intellectual property. That you could acquire a gTLD – and then obtain ownership of sorts. That once you own it: you can pretty much do there whatever you wanted. In my view, this is a fundamentally flawed  view on the way the DNS is being organized by ICANN. 

If the evaluation process drags out – that’s one thing. But once your proposal is not awarded with a contract: game over. In the 2012 round, we had no mechanism for ICANN to “end” applications. We need that for the future.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Aikman-Scalese, Anne
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 2:32 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: ICANN Application Status

Hi all,

I listened to the Zoom from the call.  Regarding General Comments Topics 1-8 and the comment from Nameshop – Item 23 in relation to preventing new applications for the same string about “checking with the applicant”  -  I am attaching the ICANN definitions of “Will Not Proceed” and “Not Approved” as well as the current lists of 2012 applications which fall in those categories.   These may be illustrative even though 2012 applications are outside the scope of this PDP.  Please remind me, did the WG say we are not prohibiting applications in these categories?  Or are they prohibited?  (I think Justine did a lot of drafting on this issue.)

I understand we should be discussing this on the list and also later in connection with “Applications Assessed in Rounds.”  I don’t know if the ICANN definitions would have to change for future rounds where new appeal processes are put in place.  This will have to be super clear in the Applicant Guidebook for the next round.    

I have always been concerned that no “back-up” applications for certain strings creates a situation where an applicant can prevent third parties from applying and essentially effect a “freeze” on a TLD string while negotiating with ICANN from strength.  For example, an applicant could apply in the next round for numerous Closed Generic strings and take the position that no other applicant in subsequent rounds could apply for that string while it is negotiating and contesting ICANN decisions not to delegate Closed Generics.  Not sure where we came out on this, but I tend to agree with Alan Greenberg’s comment on the call that the determination as to whether subsequent applications for the same string are “blocked” has to be made by ICANN.  Of course that determination itself could be subject to Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel so this is very tricky.

Regarding Greg Shatan’s comment, I think Nameshop had an application for .idn that was changed to .internet.  I am not sure of the status at this point.

Anne

Anne E. Aikman-Scalese

Of Counsel

520.629.4428 office

520.879.4725 fax

 <mailto:AAikman at lrrc.com> AAikman at lrrc.com

_____________________________

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000

Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611

 <http://lrrc.com/> lrrc.com

Because what matters

to you, matters to us.™

  _____  

This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201028/76fb1c68/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6524 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201028/76fb1c68/image001-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2461 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201028/76fb1c68/image002-0001.jpg>