Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: [] Updated Agenda for 27 January Consultation

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/24/11 5:17 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> The trademark community have supported a COI like the one currently in the AG
>
> INTA,  for example, asked that it cover "5 to 7 years of registry operation"  
> (rather than the current 3 years)
Thank you. I missed that.

I wonder how much of this is driven by their anticipation of defensive 
registration.
It should be "none", since when the registry fails, all of its 
registrations, of marks for publication, of marks for non-publication, 
and near-marks, whether by marks holders or by marks squatters, also fail.
For applications with proposed registration policies which bar 
non-community trademark registrations (those identified as 
"community-based" which are structured to score 14/16), I don't see 
how the marks holders have any interest in the longevity of their 
investments, since they're not investing.
So if the registration policy does not allow the exploitation of 
marks, and therefore drive defensive registrations, the marks interest 
in a COI should be greatly diminished.
> Like many of the costs built into the TLD evaluation process/ registry business 
> operations,   the COI is  supported by the trademark lobby.  There are many, 
> many other
> 'protections' built into the process that add to applicant cost.
More please.

> RT
Eric
> On Jan 24, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> > Avri,
> >
> > I haven't found an expression of the rational(s) for the COI, though the 
> > addenda to Thursday's meeting provides a rational for the applicant's 
> > affirmative act of providing a COI prior to the date of committing the 
> > application.
> >
> > As the COI committed resources are unconditionally granted to ICANN, which may be less 
> > motivated than a community in the well-being of its registry, the "saving" 
> > presumption may not be correct.
> >
> > I haven't found a public comment requesting a COI like vehicle or offering a 
> > rational for a COI like capability, so this appears to be the work of staff, 
> > not the community, and staff's rational is not yet disclosed, though I've asked 
> > (repeatedly).
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > On 1/24/11 4:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I though the issue was the time it took to save a failing TLD and how one might 
> > > go about that differently in some cases - especially the JAS defined case. I 
> > > did not think the issue was the time it took to actually die.
> > >
> > > a.
> > >
> > > On 24 Jan 2011, at 15:11, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Richard,
> > > >
> > > > > ... I assume the response will be that cash is the best form of security.
> > > > There are assumptions built into this.
> > > >
> > > > What exactly are we securing? Is .shoe the same as .yiddish?
> > > >
> > > > The former is a for-profit actor, possibly amounting to one person with 
> > > > sufficient resources to cause a corporate shell to be created, a application 
> > > > authored, and some service agreements entered into. The latter is the creation 
> > > > of a linguistic and cultural community.
> > > >
> > > > Does "fail" mean the same thing for both standard and community-based 
> > > > applications?
> > > >
> > > > Why are we securing? Did anyone miss .pro? Other than the consolidation issue, 
> > > > did anyone care when .name was acquired by VGRS?
> > > >
> > > > Why do we care, and why do we care for just 36 months? Are we moving the ".bug goes 
> > > > .splat" moment out to 2015 just to move bad news into the future, or does 36 months 
> > > > of buy something worth having?
> > > >
> > > > Suppose no transition operator can be found, and no recovery from the 
> > > > triggering cause occurs. What is the difference between running out of COI 
> > > > budget at failure+36months and failure now?
> > > >
> > > > I know you've looked at the time for a registrant to re-brand, which makes sense for the 
> > > > .shoe registrants, but the .yiddish registrants don't have another generic label to 
> > > > incorporate into their "brands".
> > > >
> > > > Turning to the continuity-operator-also-failing, we know that at least one 
> > > > existing ccTLD operator will apply for a gTLD. And they will use their existing 
> > > > platform, and optionally (given the VI outcome), augment by one or more 
> > > > registrars their existing set of capabilities.
> > > >
> > > > Now suppose this gTLD registry "fails". How is this different from the second 
> > > > (and subsequent) registries some ccTLD operators are now starting up through the ccTLD 
> > > > IDN FastTrack, which provides them with one or more additional iso3166-equivalent 
> > > > delegations?
> > > >
> > > > If we don't care when a ccTLD registry fails, and we're not going to care when 
> > > > a ccTLD IDN FT acquired registry fails, why are we going to care when a gTLD 
> > > > acquired by a ccTLD operator fails, or be concerned that the ability of a ccTLD 
> > > > operator to provide continuity operations may not exist?
> > > >
> > > > If cash is the only reliable tool, then applications from ccTLDs, or which 
> > > > propose to use ccTLDs as backends are problematic, since we don't take an 
> > > > operational interest in these now, and any contract will only touch the gTLD 
> > > > service surface of that ccTLD operator's capabilities.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I don't think applications by existing facilities-based ccTLD 
> > > > operators are any less credible than applications by new for-profit registry 
> > > > operators.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, and to the JAS problem: should the needs-qualified applicants even 
> > > > provide COI resources to ICANN? Shouldn't the diversity and competition 
> > > > interests result in ICANN providing the COI resources to the applicants?
> > > >
> > > > And so far staff haven't decided if they will respond.
> > > >
> > > > Eric