[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion

[Greg Shatan]

It seems to me that if there is a "loophole" here, it is a fairly narrow
one.

The “intended use” rule is not in itself, a loophole.  First, it was
intentional, as Bastiaan noted.  Second, if the rule is used as expected
and the gTLD is used as intended, the “rent seeking” described in the
“Shanghai hypothetical” never happens.  Third, because a loophole is
typically a tricky way to use a rule, not the rule itself.

The rule does have a “loophole.” It’s the one described by Marita/Alexander
— a sneaky applicant purposefully submerges its true intent, gets the gTLD,
and then causes their true intended use to re-emerge after the gTLD is
safely in its hands.  To me, this verges on fraud.  (Of course, this is all
hypothetical; nothing like this actually happened in the prior TLD rounds.)

We need to get rid of the loophole, not the rule.  You don’t drain the pool
because the kids are splashing each other.

So let’s discuss how we close the loophole in the rule that makes these
“submarine geoTLDs” possible.

It seems to me we need to clean up how the “non-geo intent” is expressed.
We need to make sure that it is expressed, not merely evidenced by an
absence of an expressed geo intent.  There needs to be some way (a PIC?)
that this enforceable.  This should not be complicated, and it is lot more
focused and reasonable, than the proposition that the “Shanghai Surprise”
must be eliminated by eliminating the entire “intended use” rule.


Best regards,

Greg



Greg Shatan
greg at isoc-ny.org
President, ISOC-NY
"The Internet is for everyone"


On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
wrote:

> That's why I was saying a city should have most favoured nation status
> when attempting to get its own name.
>
> Jonathan Zuck
> Executive Director
> Innovators Network Foundation
> www.Innovatorsnetwork.org
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, November 19, 2018 4:08:50 AM
> *To:* Evan Leibovitch
> *Cc:* Bastiaan Goslings; Jonathan Zuck; alexander at schubert.berlin; CPWG
> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Further to WT5 discussion
>
>
> > On 19 Nov 2018, at 09:35, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On November 19, 2018 02:15:17 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Then it all feels like rent seeking, that’s all.
> >
> > That about sums it up.
> >
> > +1
>
>
> Yep, and fully inline I guess with the being 'happy if DONUTS got it
> because then the Appleton might get rum.appleton, and the cities might each
> get state.appleton. holding on to it until ONE of them decides to use it is
> silly.’
>
> Donuts seems pretty proud of their Premium Domains offering.
>
> https://www.webhostingsun.com/hosting-domains/premium-donuts-domains/
>
> 'Of course, not all domain names are created equal. Among these exciting
> Donuts domains are domain names that fit together so well with their TLD,
> that they become extremely sought after. Because they’re sought after, they
> also have more value. These are called premium Donuts domains and are
> treated separately from their other domain names regarding price and
> availability.'
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20181120/71b7eba3/attachment.html>