[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Public interest generic strings - a different approach

[Alexander Schubert]

Dear George,

 

I love it!

 

A public interest registry: like a community priority application; but with
a different approach. 

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander

 

 

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 5:06 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Public interest generic strings - a different
approach

 

All,

 

I'd like to outline a different approach to the issue of public interest
generics, in the hope that it might (eventually?) contribute to a policy
solution for this issue.  This is only at the level of a thought experiment.

 

Let's hypothesize the following:

 

1. The status quo is decided in one direction or another, or is even
ignored.  I not sure it matters with this approach.

 

2. There is an unquenchable demand for the possible creation of public
interest generic string gTLDs, either for strings that have been identified
already or for the emergence of possible such strings in the future.
Therefore the GNSO policy has to have a provision for them.  (You can use
.disaster as a proxy for thinking about this, or not.)

 

3. Other top level generics, covering industries and markets will not be
allowed.  Only public interest generics will be allowed.  (The arguments
against this subset of generics depends upon a different type of public
interest argument having a basis that the monopolization of the information
space of an entire market by a single organization result in a concentration
of power that is not in the public interest.  Further the GAC is as likely
to object to this in the future as they have in the past, and the new policy
must either bypass GAC concerns or lead to a confrontation between the Board
and the GAC.

 

Given this scenario, what concerns would we have about delegating such
domains to organizations.  Each of us has some concerns including, but not
limited to, competition among which organization should receive the
delegation, control of inappropriate registrations (and who decides),
profiteering (under some definition) by virtue of being chosen, and similar
concerns.

 

Now, rather than give up on the idea of adopting the public interest string
in a gTLD, let's ask under what additional conditions would our concerns be
largely or totally alleviated?  After all, if there are organizations that
think the concept is sufficiently important to invest in, and it appears
that the GAC will accept the string as a legitimate public interest issue,
shouldn't we work toward finding a good way to make it happen rather than
saying, "There are too many difficulties with the concept, let's give it
up."

 

So here are some suggestions for the creation of a policy environment,
approved by the GNSO and very likely to be acceptable to the ICANN Board and
the GAC, that could allow such strings to exist with appropriate controls
that we would feel comfortable with.  

 

[Bear in mind that this is written on the fly and is a rough sketch of what
might happen, to indicate possibility of concept, not proof.  The big
question is whether this could be a worthwhile approach rather than if these
details are the exactly correct ones.]    

 

1. A new category of TLD is created for such strings, a little like the
community status of the previous round.  Let's name the category "Generic
Public Interest Strings."  Rationale: Attempts to fit closed pubic interest
generics into structures from the previous round don't seem to work; a new
category with new rules is needed for this category of string to work.

 

2. The applicant must be a not-for-profit organization.  With some classes
of exceptions permitted, second level registrants should also be
not-for-profit organizations or governmental organizations.

 

3. The application should contain statements of support from initial second
level registrants. The group should include a robust selection of
organizations that have a material interest in the subject and can
contribute through the domain to the public good.  Challenges should be
possible during the evaluation period.

 

4. The domain will have a management structure that recognizes the applicant
as its leader but has in addition a council of leaders consisting of a
representation of second level registrants.  Additions and deletions to the
registrant list, as well as any decisions regarding structural, behavioral
and content issues are the responsibility of such a council that will
develop its management charter.  

 

5. The domain must have in it two prominent up to date entries.  The first
should be a detailed statement of purpose, and the second should be an
updated annotated index of all second level registrants and the manner in
which their domain can be used to contribute to the public interest related
to the string.  The first entry should be a part of the application and
cannot be changed in any significant manner for the life of the gTLD except
by rough consensus of the domain management group.  (I strongly recommend a
sensitive and insightful exposition of the meaning and implications of
"rough consensus" is provided in RFC 7282 by Pete Resnick.) 

 

6. If the domain is to change hands to another manager, the transfer must be
judged on the basis of continuity and importance of purpose.  The price of
the domain will be limited to the original investment in the acquisition and
operation of the domain, appropriately discounted, and capped by the
increase in some measure such as the rate of inflation or the cost of
capital increase during the period of current management, possibly with a
multiplier and/or floor of some sort.  Rationale: This will insure that
public service rather than gain is the motivating factor for applying for
the domain.

 

I think that I would feel comfortable that a structure like this would
ensure that the domain would adhere to its original public benefit purpose.
Other structural approaches are possible also. 

 

This approach does require a new set of considerations for a new category.
This may not be an easy task, and will take time, but it is not an
impossible job.   The result -- accommodation for including public interest
generic  gTLDs  --should make such a development worthwhile and, assuming
that one agrees with the list of hypotheses at the beginning of the list,
directly addresses the possible resolution of existing generic string
disputes.

 

Comments?

 

George

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
George Sadowsky                                    Residence tel:
+1.301.968.4325

8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472                          Mobile:
+1.202.415.1933
Bethesda MD  20817-2831  USA                                    Skype:
sadowsky      
george.sadowsky at gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ 





 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200713/f2544a56/attachment.html>