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

Justine Chew justine.chew at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 05:22:50 UTC 2019 

All,

I have tweaked the draft a bit after inputs from yesterday's CPWG call.
Please have a look and let me know if any point hasn't been stressed enough.

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>


Thanks,

Justine Chew
-----


On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 17:45, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 3
>> rd 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/20190117/ee0f693d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list