[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments

[lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson]

Good evening:
> 
> Allow me to amplify and confirm my few Chat comments during the conference call last Monday afternoon, 9 April 2018.
> 
> In general the working document (1.12 Deliberations etc .) is an excursion into a working method with which I am quite unfamiliar, so I ask those of you who have this for your bread-and-butter to bear with me for a little while. I also have noted that the document is in the form of questions for discussion and not recommendations at this stage. So I hope that some of my comments may still be taken into account.
> 
> Indeed, at some points, I find the drafting on some issues rather uncertain; there are ambiguities and options that  - from the point of view of a rather more conventional  approach – might be described as loopholes. ICANN and GNSO will no doubt have gathered that the next 'round' will be scrutinised by third parties far more thoroughly than was the case in 2004 or 2012. More specifically:
> 
> 1.	Rollout: It would be helpful to have information about how many new TLDs have still not been implemented, and why.
> 
> For instance, after the 24 months allowed, it is not clear why “… extensions…should continue to be available according to the same terms and conditions as they were allowed during the 2012 round.”
> 
> In a related question, “The Work Track was also careful to avoid drawing the conclusion that only having <nic.TLD> registered constituted 'squatting' or 'warehousing' “
> 
> Taken together these two statements leave the strong impression that the Work Track would in practice accept squatting and warehousing of new TLDs. Was that intended?
> 
> If there has been 'unwanted behaviour' – and the subsequent discussion suggests that there has been – then one might have expected a rather more proactive approach to discouraging such in the future.
> 
> 2. Contractual compliance  - pricing for premium domains.
> 
> The document discusses the issue of 'pricing for premium domains' but reports that 'The WT  has not reached any conclusions on this issue'.  Whereas it is quite likely that applicant representations and related authorisations would address prmium pricing. 
> 
> For instance, in the case of a geographical name, there would normally be a presumption of non-discrimination between Registrants, such as towns or other communities, within that geo-TLD.
> 
> More generally, ICANN might consider moving towards a policy whereby the economic 'rent' for a 'premium name' should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry. Otherwise it would appear that the Registry would be taking advantage of its monopoly over their TLD in question in an unjustifiably discriminatory manner.
> 
> 3. Contractual compliance – enforceability of representations
> 
> The document reports that the WT considered a proposal 'that all applicant representations should be included in the registry agreement' and that 'There was no agreement … in support of this proposal.'
> 
>  This would appear to be a rather weak conclusion which might be queried at a later stage because it does not really respond to the four questions indicated under f. Deliberations.
> 
> 
> 				*			*			*
> 
> The above is but a summary of the main concerns evoked by this section of the draft. I look forward to discussing these and other aspects in due course. 
> 
> Christopher Wilkinson