[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Meeting 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC

Sat Apr 15 18:29:35 UTC 2017

Dear All,

I also urge you (like in many other aspects in the next round) to look at abuse potential! In the 2000/2004 and 2012 round we had by large this situation:

*         Applicants applied in good faith

*         Applicants ran a “old fashioned” type registry:

o   Registrants register SLDs through registrars at the registry

o   ICANN’s regulations adhere: 

*  WHOIS requirements, 

*  registrations are guaranteed and cannot be revoked, 

*  pricing is stable and can (if) only changed across the board: not just for one domain!

o   The domain would ALWAYS route to the name servers of the registrant:

*  day and night

*  regardless from which location the query stems

*  regardless whether from a mobile device or landline Internet

I can only assume that if generic keyword based gTLDs could be applied for and operated as “closed” TLD all or part that would change drastically! 

*         The domains would maybe be “leased” – and not registered! Example: CentralNic’s pseudo third level “registrations” under ll.com SLDs like de.com!

*         The entire TLD (like de.com as well for example) might be sold to a third party – which might NOT honor the leases (so all domains would stop routing to the desired locations)

*         There might not be ANY “WHOIS”

*         Once a domain picks up traffic (and through the zone log files the registry would know) the “lease” could rise for that particular one domain (just like a lease of a commercial building rises if a bar or club has extraordinary success)´.

*         The domains might not always or in all occasions route to the desired name servers directly – the registry could split off mobile traffic and add advertisement for example! 

*         There could be shade deals like: “Your domain for free if we can route every 10th visitor our way” – and then monetarizing the traffic for 20 seconds after that reroute it to the original page

I have not really enough phantasy here – there might be much worse out there. Once we kiss the ICANN requirements “good bye” there could be ALL KIND of strange behavior – and in a closed generic it would be perfectly legal!

So I say: There must be EXTRAORDINARY hurdles for closed TLDs. Doesn’t matter whether based on a “generic term” or not: Is “.xyz” generic? Is “.abc” generic? Is “.wtf” generic? 

The rule could be: 

*         You have to be a brand – and prove it (just having a trademark doesn’t do the trick)! 

*         The string shouldn’t match anything in any dictionary (unless you are a “global brand” like “sun” or “united”)

*          And you can use that TLD ONLY for your brand. 

Up till 2012 only ICANN insiders applied for TLDs. In the next round the ENTIRE GLOBE knows what a “new gTLD” is – and it will be more than easy to apply for one as there will be a MYRIAD of “consultancies” which offer cheap “one stop” solutions incl. application writing, RSP services, contracting with ICANN, registry in a box software, ICANN compliance, registrar onboarding and what not. There will be shady applicants, there will be straight out criminal subjects. And ICANN’s “purity test” will not keep them away.

Sorry for being so negative – but better to raise awareness now than later having to hear “but oh my God: who would have THOUGHT?”.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:23 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org
Cc: Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Agenda for WT2 Meeting 13 April 2017 at 21:00 UTC

Hi All, 

I'm a new member to this list, but there is a lot of material about the harms and concerns behind Closed Generics.  In preparation for the meeting later today, I'll post some of it. I'm copying Michele Neylon, who was a leader in sharing concerns about Closed Generics with the ICANN Community in 2013.

I don't think there is the time to prepare a robust debate for today, but hopefully at your next meeting, you might invite some of the names (people & their organizations) that you see in these materials into the discussion. There are also Community Objections on this issue that you might want to evaluate. 

Best regards, Kathy (Kleiman)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-closed-generic-05feb13/msg00174.html

Dear Sir / Madam

I am submitting these comments on behalf of Blacknight, Ireland's only ICANN 
accredited registrar. 

They do not reflect the formal views of any stakeholder group, but those of our 
company.

We are on the record with respect to our views on this issue, having spoken 
during the public forum at ICANN Toronto 
(http://toronto45.icann.org/node/34215) and having sent several letters to 
ICANN's board, which were co-signed by a broad cross-section of the ICANN 
Community:

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-chehade-et-al-24sep12-en.pdf

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/correspondence/neylon-et-al-to-chalaby-et-al-22jan13-en.pdf

Rather than rehash our previous arguments I would prefer to simply state that 
they are unchanged.

I've summarised some of the issues we see with them here:

http://www.internetnews.me/2013/02/23/5-reasons-why-closed-generic-new-gtlds-should-be-opposed/

It is also worth noting that our views are shared by some very large brands who 
have taken the time to submit very rational comments on this topic.

But more importantly both consumer and trade organisations representing large 
numbers of internet users and businesses have too.

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions ♞
Hosting & Domains
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.co
http://blog.blacknight.com/
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
Locall: 1850 929 929
Facebook: http://fb.me/blacknight
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

On 4/12/2017 4:45 AM, Michael Flemming wrote:

Dear All, 

Please find the material that we will be referring to in order to address potential harms of Closed Generics.

Kind regards,

Michael Flemming

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Michael Flemming <flemming at brightsconsulting.com <mailto:flemming at brightsconsulting.com> > wrote:

Dear All, 

This week on 13 April 2017 at 21 UTC we will be once again discussing Closed Generics. As of our last meeting, we went through the Pros and Cons of Closed Generics by looking at the comments made in the Public Comments. We have not reached a consensus on anything at this point, however, we have not had a lot of input for the Cons and potential harm of Closed Generics at the current time. This week we will try to distinguish what potential harm exists if Closed Generics were allowed by analyzing the Public Comments even further. I welcome anyone who would like to assist in this discussion and analysis by joining us this week. Below is the agenda.

1.       Welcome

2.       SOI

3.       Closed Generics

4.       AOB

I look forward to speaking with everyone and having an exciting conversation!

Kind regards,

Michael Flemming

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2 at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170415/53df8b08/attachment-0001.html>