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

Wed Nov 21 16:36:31 UTC 2018

Hi Greg,

I hear you: you want to “enforce” the “non-geo use”. The problem:
Right now the applicant doesn’t have to “declare non-geo use”! It’s sadly the OTHER way around: Only when the geo-name panel finds that the applicant clearly declares the intention to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city – only THEN they need the letter of non-objection! So if you take the average Donuts application (e.g. the one for .bike: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails:downloadapplication/874?t:ac=874) then you will see: Even when you actually don’t even MENTION the gTLD “keyword” (here: “bike”) it is seen as valid. Replace “bike” with “shanghai”: it would still be a valid application, and it would nowhere voice an intention to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city.

That’s the main crux: I think it doesn’t really MATTER what the “intentions” of the applicant are. The applicant doesn’t “sell” domains. It’s the registrars who do. Ultimately the geo-name panel should consider the “likely” (or “foreseeable”) “use” by the registrants to make a call on whether or not the gTLD will be used for purposes associated with the city. And the threshold shouldn’t be “primarily” – but “substantial”. Primarily is probably 85% or more. Whereas anything over (say) 25% is already “substantial”.  If there was an application for “.shanghai” and it would be identical to the “.bike” application: It’s kind of crystal clear that a “substantial” amount of registrations would be executed with the intention “to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city”. And that “test” should be executed by the GEO NAME PANEL, and not by the APPLICANT. Otherwise we make the goat the gardener.

And even if we included a provision, whereby the applicant has to explicitly “declare” the “non-geo use” “intention”: How can the registry operator “enforce” that? Taking down domains that have city related content? That would create a nightmare.

Opinions?

Thanks,

Alexander

From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 3:52 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Further to WT5 discussion

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

 <mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org> 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> 

  _____  

From: Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:evanleibovitch at gmail.com> > wrote:
> 
> 
> On November 19, 2018 02:15:17 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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/20181121/c8ac1a1e/attachment.html>