[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
Alexander Schubert
alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Jul 23 12:29:31 UTC 2020
Another huge risk of closed gTLDs:Currently we have 3 types of gTLDs:Open gTLDs like .bike or .onlineRestricted gTLDs like .bankClosed Spec13 gTLDs like .bmwIn 1.) and 2.) registrants enjoy many protections:The registry can't take away their domain - e.g. to give it to someone who offers a lot of money.The registry can't suddenly 50-fold the price for a registration (or "lease"); just because a business generates Millions via that domain.The registry can't easily change their policies: they can't suddenly deny certain content for example.I guess there are many other protections that I am not aware of.In 3.) there are no registrants - so if someone was allowed by the brand to run a domain: they would not enjoy ANY rights or protections.So what if someone applies for ".vlog" as closed gTLD - offering vloggers (video bloggers) free domains and free hosting as long as the "registry" (the company that leases 2nd level domains) may display ads in a headbanner? Super innovative. Very beneficial as it is free. But now the vloggers who claim fame and have tons of users become vulnerable - as "their domain" isn't theirs - and the registry could change pricing and policies at any time specifically on a per domain basis. "Oh: fashion.vlog makes US $5Million a year? Let's charge them US $100,000 annual lease." (Of course it started out as free offering).I just don't yet see where anyone needs a closed gTLD that is still safe for the users - outside of brands. SNAP or TWITTER assigning account names to .snap or .twitter to create vanity social media domains: yes! But those are brands.What would be an example of a closed TLD which couldn't be realized as Spec13 or restricted gTLDs?AlexanderSent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman at lrrc.com>
Date: 7/22/20 20:16 (GMT+02:00)
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>, gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:399521669;
mso-list-template-ids:780543898;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:780992619;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1179395464 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1142193394;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1272606074 67698711 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1207184610;
mso-list-template-ids:1184166598;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:2106605665;
mso-list-template-ids:206316850;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
Jeff,
If I understand what you are saying, the proposal put together by this group is not currently restricted because it is, in fact, an eligibility issue (and probably a GAC safeguard issue) and is not, in fact a
Closed Generic and is not prohibited by the current rules or the Board’s Resolution on Closed Generics. Is that right?
Anne
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 6:19 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
[EXTERNAL]
A lot to respond to here, but let me try:
Why is this not a Closed TLD Proposal
The Proposal at the very beginning states that it will allocate domain space to initial and subsequent partners and other relevant entities. The closest definition we have to a non-brand closed TLD is in
Specification 11:
Registry Operator of a “Generic String” TLD may not impose eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that
limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates”
(as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement).
“Affiliates” are defined in the corporate sense, not in the general sense of affiliation.
Section 2.9(c): “For the purposes of this Agreement: (i) “Affiliate” means a person or entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries,
or in combination with one or more other persons or entities, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the person or entity specified, and (ii) “control” (including the terms “controlled by” and “under common control with”) means the possession,
directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of a person or entity, whether through the ownership of securities, as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee or a member of a board of directors or
equivalent governing body, by contract, by credit arrangement or otherwise."
This proposal does not meet the definition of closed. It is more akin to a Community TLD or Open Restricted.
The proposal also provides for the expansion of the name space to include a larger group of organizations.The Operation of the TLD section talks about revenue from fees charged for registrations. I know of no “closed” TLD that charges for registrations (because again the Registry Operator is the Registrant
for all names and wouldn’t charge itself).The earthquake example is a good one to show that one would rather apply for an “open restricted” .earthquake TLD as opposed to a PICGTLD. If I am the US Geological Survey, I can apply as an open restricted
TLD and propose all of the same rules with respect to second level registrations and not have any of the strict requirements in the proposal (Council, restriction on transfer, ICANN Board approval, etc.). Because this proposal provides no benefit (eg., priority
in contention), there is NO reason to elect being a PICGTLD.
Response to Alan:
a)
In the above example where the US geological Survey applies for .earthquake and proposed restrictions to only those organizations that are equivalent to what you list in 5.2 of the proposal, there is no existing objection that would
survive.
b)
Yes there are at least 2 TLDs (.bank and .pharmacy) that have VERY strict requirements. So strict that some organizations have complained because although they are accredited to be a bank of pharmacy in their home country, they still
may not be eligible because of not being up to the standards of the TLD. .pharmacy for example requires extensive checks of regulatory licenses, physical inspection of franchisees, etc. One could argue that these TLDs are actually more restrictive than the
proposed PICGTLDs.
c)
You state: “But as I started with, if there is no value to what we are proposing, then perhaps the best path is to simply forbid such closed TLDs."
a.
That is essentially what the proposal does. I
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200723/c81e10b5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list