[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model
Tijani BEN JEMAA
tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
Wed Jan 9 08:23:07 UTC 2019
Good point Alexander. Thank you.
Now, I change my position regarding the phased application round: I don’t find it fair nor relevant anymore.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
+216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le 9 janv. 2019 à 01:04, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> a écrit :
>
> Hi all,
>
> In general there might be a value to the multi-tier application process. But I see a fatal problem: abuse of phase 1 or 2 to snag away generic terms! Abuse of phase 1 to snag away geo terms!
>
> The paper references to the last round and claimed there was no “abuse” regarding brand applications. Well, how could there have been “abuse”? However: if labeling an application “brand” will put me in the pole position in 2019; you will see abuse a lot. Examples:
> - .coin (blockchain based currencies)
> - .ico (Initial Coin Offering: if you do not know what this is then you are born before 1990)
> - .weed (this is worth 8 figures in U.S. Dollares: getting it at application fee would be the ultimate scoup)
>
> If I knew that I could get any of these WITHOUT ANY COMPETITION – wow: having to run them as “closed gTLD” would be a small price to pay. Look how well “.us.com <http://us.com/>” (“.de.com <http://de.com/>”, etc.) sell: www.us.com <http://www.us.com/>, SEVERAL TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN .com!! These are also kind of “closed gTLDs” (on third level). I would simply “lease” the “.coin” domain-usage to third parties – but I remain the owner!
>
> Or “geo applications”? Same problem! If I want “.weed” – there are SEVERAL places “Weed” in the world! I don’t even need their consent (letter of non-objection) as they aren’t “cities”! GREAT! The same for “.coin”! And “.ico”! Look for yourselves at www.geonames.org <http://www.geonames.org/> – all place names that do NOT need letters of non-objection!
>
> In other words: We would INVITE “fraudsters” to take generic and geo names in the 1st phase, or to steal generic names in the geo names phase! You find a “place” for almost EVERY generic term!
>
> Here however why the overall Neustar plan might work (with a caveat):
> ICANN could start to EVALUATE applications based on this tiered application plan! But no single gTLD can be designated until the last application from stage 3 is in! We MUST allow contention sets to form. In other words: If by Jan 12 2021 nobody else has applied for a certain string that has been applied for in the “brand phase”: they can contract ASAP as they have been evaluated a long time ago; freeing up capacities for phase 3 applications! Which would be good for them as that is an IMMENSE “fast track”. However: IF somebody would apply for the same string in phase 2 or 3: a contention set would form!
>
> So the plan is GREAT – just nothing would be contracted before the end of the 3rd phase (and ONLY if there is no contention). The same is true for “string similarity”. If a smallish brand applies for “.shangai” and would be granted the application before the phase 2 starts, then Shanghai and it’s 24 Million constituents could NOT apply, if SHANGAI and SHANGHAI would be too similar (if this example doesn’t work, there will be others). Again: We need contentions sets and string similarities to form and fight it out!
>
> Regarding the 3rd round: while it is part of the Neustar plan – that’s wholly independent. Right now we are planning the 2ndround. The 3rd round is completely independent from the 2nd round.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
>
> From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marita Moll
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 4:51 PM
> To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>>; Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann at bachollet.fr>>
> Cc: cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] Subsequent Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model
>
> I agree with the suggestions that there is an appearance of conflict of interest and that there is an apparent "pushing" of the dates fast forward. I believe, in our submission, we expressed caution about entering into a new round. Although the slides suggest a pent-up demand in the .brand category -- is there actually evidence for this?
>
> That said, when a new round happens, this isn't a bad strategy. I like Tijani's reorganization of the phases though.
>
> Marita
>
> On 1/5/2019 6:37 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>> Justine, thanks again; This is another excellent piece of work.
>>
>> I tend to agree with Olivier regarding the conflict of interest of Jeff. I attended the SubPro WG meeting in Barcelona, and Jeff said they are preparing fpr the new application process even before the whole consultation process finishes and before the final approval of the Board. I asked why the rush…. I find the Neustar proposal premature since it’s not yet decided if there will be successive rounds or a single open round. Their proposal of a phased round followed immediately by an open round gave me the impression that decisions are already made.
>>
>> As for phased round, it might be a good thing, but I disagree with the order of the phases and their nature:
>> The community applications shouldn’t be combined with the generic ones
>> I agree that the first phase can be for the dot brand TLDs that are not geo names
>> The second phase should be for the community TLDs and applications supported by the ASP since we proposed that these applications should have the priority in case of string contention.
>> 3rd phase for the geo TLDs
>> 4th phase for the generic TLDs
>>
>> But as I said, all this is premature and will depend on the content of the WG final report approved by the board (priority policy for community and supported applications, kind of application rounds, etc.).
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tijani BEN JEMAA
>> Executive Director
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>> +216 52 385 114
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> Le 5 janv. 2019 à 10:47, Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann at bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann at bachollet.fr>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> Thanks
>>> I support in large part the comments of OCL
>>> But it will be easier if we get the slide deck (I didn’t know why I didn’t get it - yet?)
>>> All the best
>>> SeB
>>>
>>>
>>>> Le 5 janv. 2019 à 09:49, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Dear Justine,
>>>>
>>>> thank you very much for putting together slides with Neustar's proposals. I must admit that these slides made me feel particularly uneasy about the whole process of subsequent procedures. Without prejudice, here we have the Chair of the working group, main driver of the working group moving forward, ex-Neustar and currently working for Valideus, a company that stands to capitalise significantly in the creation of brand TLDs, pushing a calendar that is suggested by his ex-firm, favouring his current firm. I cannot stop seeing a flashing sign telling me "conflict of interest" here.
>>>>
>>>> At ICANN Studienkreis and elsewhere, Cherine Chalaby has been asking the community about the need for a fast next round, and the majority of people around the table, whether end users, businesses, registrars and established registries said they were not eager for an immediate next round. It is only companies that stand to benefit directly from new gTLDs, such as the service providers that have flourished to help with TLD applications (and independent consultants), or register brands, or apply a city TLD business model that they have already applied elsewhere, who are pushing for a next round.
>>>>
>>>> I am not against a next round, but when I see an illustration on page 4 saying "brand TLDs" with an application window 1st Oct 2919 to 12 Jan 2020 (even though there is an asterisk saying proposed dates are illustrative only), this worries me as a way to circulate potential dates for next round. That is, again, putting the carriage before the horses.
>>>>
>>>> That said, on the actual concept of three phase model, and irrespective of the above, I am not against the concept of phases, but I do not agree with the proposed phases themselves. Phase 1, brands, sound okay, except for those brands that are geographic names. I would argue that Community TLDs should not be batched with generic TLDs and should be prioritised before GeoTLDs. So Community TLDs should go to phase 2 and Geo TLDs could go to phase 3. I would also say that I have seen significant pushback on generic TLDs that are based on generic words, so I really wonder how that is going to pan out.
>>>>
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>
>>>> Olivier
>>>>
>>>> On 05/01/2019 09:08, Justine Chew wrote:
>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings for the New Year 2019.
>>>>>
>>>>> During one of the SubPro PDP Sub-Group's review of community submissions received for the Public Comment on the Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4) (which concluded on 26 Sep 2018), that WG's Co-Chair, Jeff Neuman, requested that SO/AC liaisons obtain from their stakeholder groups feedback on a proposal by Neustar for the (next) New gTLD Program applications to be conducted in three phases followed by an open round.
>>>>>
>>>>> Details of Neustar's proposal are contained in the attached slide deck.
>>>>>
>>>>> I invite you to provide feedback on the same by:-
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Replying to this email (or to me privately, if you prefer);
>>>>> 2) Starting a separate email thread to cpwg at icann.org <mailto:cpwg at icann.org> if you wish to discuss a specific aspect of the said proposal; and/or
>>>>> 3) Joining the next CPWG call (tentatively on 9 Jan 2019, please look out for a notice from At-Large staff for this call)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Justine Chew
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CPWG mailing list
>>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <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 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
>>>>
>>>> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CPWG mailing list
>>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>_______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190109/71c99db1/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list