[CPWG] Subsequent Procedures | Draft At-Large Position to Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New gTLD Application Model Consultation

Wed Jan 16 09:45:27 UTC 2019

Dear all,

I have posted a draft position for this consultation on the wiki workspace:

Consultation on Neustar's Proposal for 3-Phased New gTLD Application Model
<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Consultation+on+Neustar%27s+Proposal+for+3-Phased+New+gTLD+Application+Model>

Would appreciate receiving any comments, concerns, suggested amendments or
indications of support in the next few days.

Thanks,

Justine Chew
-----

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 22:18, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
wrote:

>
>
> Hi Tujani,
>
>
>
> Well, it still has its merits: “Brand applications” are fairly easy to
> evaluate, and if they are based on “true BRANDS” (which mostly bear
> non-generic terms like “YAHOO” or “BMW”) then in all likelihood there won’t
> be a similar or identical geo or generic-term based application in the 3rd
> phase! So by the start of the 3rd phase ICANN would already have
> evaluated all 1st and 2nd phase applications, and save for very singular
> events (or “fraudsters”) there won’t be any “overlap” (maybe between brand
> and geo as many brands are feeding from the good standing that cities have
> built over decades, centuries in some cases even millennia). So let ICANN
> have all the phase 1 and 2 applications evaluated already – but there won’t
> be ANY “contracting” yet: ONLY if there are no similar or identical
> applications in the THIRD PHASE the contracting can start ASAP!
>
> Here btw another “fraud”-type of thing that would happen in the currently
> proposed Neustar model (if we would NOT wait with contracting until ALL
> applications are in, and potentially “late contentions sets” could emerge):
> You probably remember that some “brands” thought it would be beneficial if
> they would “get hold” of “their” industry vertical! Examples being
> “.makeup” by L’Oréal or .cruise by Viking Cruises! .cruise is especially
> bitter:
> There was a nice stakeholder group supported (think “community” – but
> “stakeholder”) application by “Cruise Lines International Association Inc.”
> (cruising.org = “Established in 1975, Cruise Lines International
> Association is the world’s largest cruise industry trade association”). I
> think EVERY SINGLE INTERNET USER would agree, that a “.cruise” by that
> association would have been PERFECT: a perfect match of the mission of
> ICANN! Cruise organizers could have registered domains for their companies
> and ships and cruises! Yet: Viking Cruises NEEDED to persist – and got the
> TLD! It’s in the root since over 2 years now! And there are ZERO
> registrations outside of the mandatory nic.cruise!
> These guys applied in spring 2012. They had over 4.5 years of time in
> planning how to launch their gTLD! Now it’s sitting there since over two
> years – and no domains are available. Looks to me as they simply wanted to
> claim land – but never use it; never wanted to make it available to the
> cruise industry!
>
> Guess what will happen in 2020? “Consultants” will squirrel around and
> call new media managers of multi-billion corporations and tell them: “Look:
> there is only one .dairy but you have a number of high profile competitors:
> stay industry leader and secure .dairy for a one-time lump sum price of $US
> 500k including 10 years of maintenance. We do EVERYTHING for you, including
> application, contracting, delegation, etc! Take it now: think LATER what
> you do with it!”.
>
>
>
> Now if you have a phase 1 for “closed applications” (specification 13) for
> “brands”: COOOOOOL! Nobody has ever DEFINED what a “brand” is. Likely you
> do not have to proof the very existence of such “brand” – well: IF then a
> simply US $200 trade mark application will do the trick! We reverted the
> process: instead of having to proof that your brand is really “in use” we
> said: “If somebody signs spec 13: that’s enough”. And if you want to take a
> generic industry term “out of circulation”: Well, you just apply for it as
> “brand” – and you have it. You can then offer domains to resellers,
> friendly bloggers etc! Say you have the “.drone” and you are one of the big
> drone manufacturers: You allow blogs and brand-forums that are writing
> positively about you to use “.drone” domains, FOR FREE! If they do not
> comply: you shut them down. Nice. Do we want that?
>
> “Brands” could get an early application window and through that an early
> evaluation. But NO CONTRACTING before the very last phase 3 application is
> in. IF there is a contention set: then it will have to be dealt with!
> Contention may result from identical strings, or SIMILAR strings (string
> similarity).
>
> What I do like about Neustar’s idea is: Brands do not apply by themselves.
> They are triggered and consulted by 3rd party professionals. A brand
> application is essentially a “copy paste job” – with a bit bolstering here
> and there. Whereas if you go for a geo: Oh boy. Obviously the hardest are
> non-profit, public-benefit, stakeholder group funded, owned, policied,
> supported and marketed applications: It takes YEARS to bring them together.
> I work on one since 2016 now already. So let the consultants go to the
> brands and have them submitting applications already – and ICANN can
> already evaluate them! That gives the others time to sort their
> applications out – and apply later! It also “frees up” much needed
> capacities for later evaluations. In that respect: A good idea! BUT:
> contention sets have to have the chance to form – no contracting before the
> last application is in. If a brand is called “VEED” but somebody applies
> for “.weed” (and I can guarantee you: there are applicant for .weed): looks
> like string similarity – they will have to form a contention set.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander.berlin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:23 AM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* cpwg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent
> Procedures | Request for feedback on Neustar's proposal for 3-phased New
> gTLD Application Model
>
>
>
> 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” (“.de.com”, etc.) sell: 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 – 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
> <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>; Sebastien Bachollet <
> sebicann at bachollet.fr>
> *Cc:* 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> 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> 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 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
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
>
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> CPWG mailing list
>
> CPWG at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20190116/8da8862d/attachment-0001.html>