[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments

Thu Apr 12 13:01:45 UTC 2018

All,

I see a lot of good discussion on the substance of the recommendations (or lack thereof) and the merits of the substance in the report.  While this is great, can I ask that these types of discussions be moved over to your responses filed during the Public Comment period as opposed to comments on the Initial Report.

Cheryl and I will send around another note on this in the next 24 hours, but lets please focus on the following:

  1.  Does the Initial Report reflect the conversations that took place within the Working Group or in the Work Tracks?
  2.  Are there any positions that were actually expressed either in the CC1 or CC2 comments periods and/or in the actual discussions of the Working Group/Work Tracks that are not reflected in the Initial Report; Or are the positions that are expressed inaccurate.
  3.  Are the questions presented for public comment clear, concise and likely to evoke the types of responses that will be useful to the Working Group in finalizing recommendations on the specific subject matter.

On the full Working Group call this week there were some really good comments from Anne, Christopher, Kristina and others on the types of things we are looking for.  Namely, comments on what certain terms we used meant and that we needed a preamble of sorts discussing the approach we are taking for the initial report in general.  Those are really the types of things we want to hear right now as we release more sections of the report.

The types of things that we would not necessarily need at this point (although they are great in comments back during the public comment period) are (1) we like (or don’t like) where the Work Track came out on an issue, (2) We should have addressed issues x, y and z, (3) we disagree with comments that were made during deliberations.  Again, they are important in responses back to the Initial Report during the public comment period, but they are not helpful for us in getting the Initial Report out in an manner that reflects the discussions that actually did take place.

I hope that makes sense.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA
1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
Mclean, VA 22102, United States
E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
T: +1.703.635.7514
M: +1.202.549.5079
@Jintlaw

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of trachtenbergm at gtlaw.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:48 AM
To: michele at blacknight.com
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments

Except that such transparency was not, and still is not, being enforced by ICANN.

Best Regards,

Marc H.Trachtenberg
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Office (312) 456-1020
Mobile (773) 677-3305

On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:35 AM, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com<mailto:michele at blacknight.com>> wrote:
Wasn’t pricing and why attempting to regulate it already discussed to death in the last round?

I have some recollection of this.

I think the key thing with regard to pricing is transparency, which is already baked into the contracts.

Regards

Michele

--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
https://www.blacknight.com/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.blacknight.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=bA8ke9fZMPiE40lw06R51Nv5lKybHgfpkSJpOOO9W0E&e=>
http://blacknight.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blacknight.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=NgP6XySIrWA_6Mpx-r9iP8o77v89ClvAmypwpV4Ab6U&e=>
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__michele.blog_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=bG0zAbbRRHGTEp-xbsrMIzJNlwbud0ymAf-WTUyH9Gs&e=>
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ceo.hosting_&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=FNiacIxcGagpNZgv53lNIi5nuvAsGGEISocnILL5UvM&e=>
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday 12 April 2018 at 09:13
To: "lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson" <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>, Christopher Wilkinson <cw at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:cw at christopherwilkinson.eu>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Deliberations and Recommendations - CW comments

Dear Christopher,

I'd like to make a comment and a note.

1.  a note about pricing for premium domains - 'picket fence' protects both registries and registrars from influence of policies on pricing
(also direct price regulation from ICANN will lead to investigations of anti-monopoly agencies around the world[in some countries it will constitute a crime])

2. a comment on "Registry would be taking advantage of its monopoly over their TLD in question in an unjustifiably discriminatory manner."
Fact that a particular company has a monopoly can be established only by the relevant market regulator.
Registrants are free to choose another TLDs, if they are not happy with the terms of the particular ones.
So assumptions that Registries are monopolists are not established facts and we can not use it.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)

On 11 Apr 2018, at 23:51, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> Wilkinson <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>> wrote:

Good evening:

Allow me to amplify and confirm my few Chat comments during the conference call last Monday afternoon, 9 April 2018.

In general the working document (1.12 Deliberations etc .) is an excursion into a working method with which I am quite unfamiliar, so I ask those of you who have this for your bread-and-butter to bear with me for a little while. I also have noted that the document is in the form of questions for discussion and not recommendations at this stage. So I hope that some of my comments may still be taken into account.

Indeed, at some points, I find the drafting on some issues rather uncertain; there are ambiguities and options that  - from the point of view of a rather more conventional  approach – might be described as loopholes. ICANN and GNSO will no doubt have gathered that the next 'round' will be scrutinised by third parties far more thoroughly than was the case in 2004 or 2012. More specifically:

1. Rollout: It would be helpful to have information about how many new TLDs have still not been implemented, and why.

For instance, after the 24 months allowed, it is not clear why “… extensions…should continue to be available according to the same terms and conditions as they were allowed during the 2012 round.”

In a related question, “The Work Track was also careful to avoid drawing the conclusion that only having <nic.TLD> registered constituted 'squatting' or 'warehousing' “

Taken together these two statements leave the strong impression that the Work Track would in practice accept squatting and warehousing of new TLDs. Was that intended?

If there has been 'unwanted behaviour' – and the subsequent discussion suggests that there has been – then one might have expected a rather more proactive approach to discouraging such in the future.

2. Contractual compliance  - pricing for premium domains.

The document discusses the issue of 'pricing for premium domains' but reports that 'The WT  has not reached any conclusions on this issue'.  Whereas it is quite likely that applicant representations and related authorisations would address prmium pricing.

For instance, in the case of a geographical name, there would normally be a presumption of non-discrimination between Registrants, such as towns or other communities, within that geo-TLD.

More generally, ICANN might consider moving towards a policy whereby the economic 'rent' for a 'premium name' should accrue to the Registrant and not to the Registry. Otherwise it would appear that the Registry would be taking advantage of its monopoly over their TLD in question in an unjustifiably discriminatory manner.

3. Contractual compliance – enforceability of representations

The document reports that the WT considered a proposal 'that all applicant representations should be included in the registry agreement' and that 'There was no agreement … in support of this proposal.'

This would appear to be a rather weak conclusion which might be queried at a later stage because it does not really respond to the four questions indicated under f. Deliberations.

*
*
*

The above is but a summary of the main concerns evoked by this section of the draft. I look forward to discussing these and other aspects in due course.

Christopher Wilkinson
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwMGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=UUOs32AZjl8vCovTaI3_D-BnBrwtt5n12_lt3qDEJLE&m=uZkytQkAico2W9WbNe3kXc49eDKSGgJ5k_mUCTx8loQ&s=9iDL506KVFdYOLjI4IT5bOk-lWfAKbQ9XxDSiQC9ca8&e=>

_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Dnewgtld-2Dwg&d=DwICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=6-fwmTDdQbXrJ1yoFlypUVIF4fZ4jjNzfStx1teH9LU&s=1CMwOhfbcNe_s74vjm9dn14_An6HzGRBig2ZKwK0ues&e=
________________________________
If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster at gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster at gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20180412/b490f43e/attachment-0001.html>