<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head>
<body>
I am on an EPDP call for the next several hours but will reply later
today.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2020-07-22 09:19 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">A lot to respond to here, but
let me try:<br>
<br>
<u>Why is this not a Closed TLD Proposal</u>
<ol>
<li>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:
</ol> <br>
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). <br>
<br>
?Affiliates? are defined in the corporate sense, not in the general sense
of affiliation. <br>
<br>
<u>Section 2.9(c):</u> ?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."<br>
<br>
This proposal does not meet the definition of closed. It is more
akin to a Community TLD or Open Restricted.<br>
<ol>
<li>The proposal also provides for the expansion of the name space to
include a larger group of organizations.
<li>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).
<li>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.
</ol> <br>
Response to Alan:
<ol>
<li>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.
<li>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.
<li>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."
<ol>
<li>That is essentially what the proposal does. It will not allow
one organization to apply for a gTLD and only distribute the second level
names to itself or its members.
<li>An example of a Closed Generic would be .disaster (as discussed
before) where the International Red Cross applies for the string and
allocates the names to its affiliates (the national red cross
organizations) to use for their local disaster relief funds. But I
do not see how that would qualify under your proposal.
<li>But I believe that allowing the .disaster for the International Red
Cross would serve a public interest goal in ensuring that all donations
go to where it is supposed to go to provide humanitarian relief.
</ol>
</ol> <br>
I will let the Working Group speak on what this means about allowing or
not allowing Closed Generics. Its not up to me. But this
proposal is not one that applies to ?Closed Generics?.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20200722102351.0ae37778@mcgill.ca.4" width="300" height="3" alt="[]">
<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20200722102351.0ae37778@mcgill.ca.5" width="219" height="123" alt="[]">
<br>
Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
Founder & CEO<br>
JJN Solutions, LLC<br>
p: +1.202.549.5079<br>
E: <a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a><br>
<a href="http://jjnsolutions.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://jjnsolutions.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:33 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; George Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky@gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public
interest generic gTLDs<br>
<br>
Jeff, as Greg noted, since it is a closed TLD, all
"registrations" are owned by the registry, so they are not
actually registrations.<br><br>
In terms of your first question, why not just a restricted open TLD, you
are basically correct.<br><br>
We went with the premise that in light of GAC advice, the only closed
generics will be ones that are demonstrable serve a public interest goal.
If as you hypothesize, all such public interest closed generics *COULD*
be implemented as open restricted, then there is no need for closed
generics and the PDP recommends that closed generics not be allowed.
Period. End of discussion.<br><br>
The rational for why one would select our proposal over an open
restricted is that the proposal rules cover all of the objections that
could be raised to an open restricted TLD - such as being based on an
insufficient governing structure for instance. More important, the
registration restrictions would have to be very difficult and specific on
how nth level registrations and extensions are used and the types of
content allowed. I'm not sure there are TLDs with such restrictions. The
closed TLD can set all the rules for how the overall TLD is use,
allocating 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, etc. names as they best suit
its purpose. So the "restricted" would be FAR more than just
validating credentials.<br><br>
Note that in our proposal the first characteristic we are looking for is
TRUST. The proposal is designed to help build public trust in the TLD. AN
open restricted domain MIGHT do that, but it might not. <br><br>
We were working on the presumption that one of the major concerns was
predictability - that an application not be made that could be shot down
in a multitude of ways and at the very least, subjected to long
delays.<br><br>
So "follow the PICG rules, and the chances of actually being able to
deploy the TLD are much better." And with that comes some conditions
as you note.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2020-07-21 09:38 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br><br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Thanks for this proposal George and the team. The major item
that jumps out at me is that the TLD structure you describe is not really
a ?closed? TLD, but rather is akin an ?open restricted? TLD.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Anyone can already apply for an ?open restricted? TLD without any of
the restrictions you have set forth in this paper. This is like .bank,
.pharmacy or others that have third party registrants who agree to very
strict validation requirements. So, if I can apply for a
.earthquake (your example) as an ?open restricted? TLD without any of the
restrictions that are contained within your paper, why would I apply for
your ?PICgTLD? and agree up front to (a) no expectancy of renewal; (b)
restrictions on transfers; (c) obligations of a Council, (d) approval by
the board, etc.? What is the benefit for me to do that when I
can achieve the same thing without agreeing to any of that? <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Now if we stated that all of the registrations are ?owned? by
the Registry itself for use in connection with itself and its members,
then perhaps that gets closer to the closed TLD. Thus, the registry
could ?license? registrations to third parties (not transfer ownership)
so long as the registry itself always maintains ownership of the names
and can control the type of content on the sites.<br><br>
<dd>Thanks for kicking off the discussion.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20200722102351.0ae37778@mcgill.ca.6" width="300" height="3" alt="[]">
<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>
<img src="cid:7.1.0.9.2.20200722102351.0ae37778@mcgill.ca.7" width="219" height="123" alt="[]">
<br>
<dd>Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
<dd>Founder & CEO<br>
<dd>JJN Solutions, LLC<br>
<dd>p: +1.202.549.5079<br>
<dd>E:
<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a><br>
<dd><a href="http://jjnsolutions.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://jjnsolutions.com</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg
<<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org">
gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> On Behalf Of </b>George
Sadowsky<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b>
<a href="mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a>
<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public
interest generic gTLDs<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>All,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>As promised, attached is our proposed method of implementing the use
of new closed generic top level domains in the public interest within the
DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, Greg Shatan
and me. We believe that it has merit and deserves consideration by
both the working group and the broader ICANN community, and we welcome
the opportunity to present it for comment, discussion and
criticism. We believe that while there are improvements can be
made, the approach of creating such a category of TLDs, trusted and
protected to serve a public interest, is a goal that can be
achieved.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>We hope that the proposal and the approach that it takes to
implementing such a new class of gTLDs will receive serious consideration
and criticism by the community. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Regards,<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>George<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br><br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org">
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" eudora="autourl">
</a><a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link
above to change your membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery
altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.<br><br>
</dl><br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>