[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Jul 22 14:24:16 UTC 2020
I am on an EPDP call for the next several hours but will reply later today.
Alan
At 2020-07-22 09:19 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote:
>A lot to respond to here, but let me try:
>
>Why is this not a Closed TLD Proposal
> * The Proposal at the very beginning states that it will
> allocate domain space to initial and subsequent partners and other
> relevant entities. The closest definition we have to a non-brand
> closed TLD is in Specification 11:
>
>Registry Operator of a "Generic String" TLD may not impose
>eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit
>registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that
>person's or entity's "Affiliates" (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of
>the Registry Agreement).
>
>"Affiliates" are defined in the corporate sense, not in the general
>sense of affiliation.
>
>Section 2.9(c): "For the purposes of this Agreement: (i)
>"Affiliate" means a person or entity that, directly or indirectly,
>through one or more intermediaries, or in combination with one or
>more other persons or entities, controls, is controlled by, or is
>under common control with, the person or entity specified, and (ii)
>"control" (including the terms "controlled by" and "under common
>control with") means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the
>power to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies
>of a person or entity, whether through the ownership of securities,
>as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee or a member of a
>board of directors or equivalent governing body, by contract, by
>credit arrangement or otherwise."
>
>This proposal does not meet the definition of closed. It is more
>akin to a Community TLD or Open Restricted.
>
> * The proposal also provides for the expansion of the name space
> to include a larger group of organizations.
> * The Operation of the TLD section talks about revenue from fees
> charged for registrations. I know of no "closed" TLD that charges
> for registrations (because again the Registry Operator is the
> Registrant for all names and wouldn't charge itself).
> * The earthquake example is a good one to show that one would
> rather apply for an "open restricted" .earthquake TLD as opposed to
> a PICGTLD. If I am the US Geological Survey, I can apply as an
> open restricted TLD and propose all of the same rules with respect
> to second level registrations and not have any of the strict
> requirements in the proposal (Council, restriction on transfer,
> ICANN Board approval, etc.). Because this proposal provides no
> benefit (eg., priority in contention), there is NO reason to elect
> being a PICGTLD.
>
>Response to Alan:
> * In the above example where the US geological Survey applies
> for .earthquake and proposed restrictions to only those
> organizations that are equivalent to what you list in 5.2 of the
> proposal, there is no existing objection that would survive.
> * Yes there are at least 2 TLDs (.bank and .pharmacy) that have
> VERY strict requirements. So strict that some organizations have
> complained because although they are accredited to be a bank of
> pharmacy in their home country, they still may not be eligible
> because of not being up to the standards of the TLD. .pharmacy for
> example requires extensive checks of regulatory licenses, physical
> inspection of franchisees, etc. One could argue that these TLDs
> are actually more restrictive than the proposed PICGTLDs.
> * You state: "But as I started with, if there is no value to
> what we are proposing, then perhaps the best path is to simply
> forbid such closed TLDs."
> * That is essentially what the proposal does. It will not
> allow one organization to apply for a gTLD and only distribute the
> second level names to itself or its members.
> * An example of a Closed Generic would be .disaster (as
> discussed before) where the International Red Cross applies for the
> string and allocates the names to its affiliates (the national red
> cross organizations) to use for their local disaster relief
> funds. But I do not see how that would qualify under your proposal.
> * But I believe that allowing the .disaster for the
> International Red Cross would serve a public interest goal in
> ensuring that all donations go to where it is supposed to go to
> provide humanitarian relief.
>
>I will let the Working Group speak on what this means about allowing
>or not allowing Closed Generics. Its not up to me. But this
>proposal is not one that applies to "Closed Generics".
>
>
>
>
>
>[]
>
>
>[]
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Founder & CEO
>JJN Solutions, LLC
>p: +1.202.549.5079
>E: <mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:33 PM
>To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; George Sadowsky
><george.sadowsky at gmail.com>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public
>interest generic gTLDs
>
>Jeff, as Greg noted, since it is a closed TLD, all "registrations"
>are owned by the registry, so they are not actually registrations.
>
>In terms of your first question, why not just a restricted open TLD,
>you are basically correct.
>
>We went with the premise that in light of GAC advice, the only
>closed generics will be ones that are demonstrable serve a public
>interest goal. If as you hypothesize, all such public interest
>closed generics *COULD* be implemented as open restricted, then
>there is no need for closed generics and the PDP recommends that
>closed generics not be allowed. Period. End of discussion.
>
>The rational for why one would select our proposal over an open
>restricted is that the proposal rules cover all of the objections
>that could be raised to an open restricted TLD - such as being based
>on an insufficient governing structure for instance. More important,
>the registration restrictions would have to be very difficult and
>specific on how nth level registrations and extensions are used and
>the types of content allowed. I'm not sure there are TLDs with such
>restrictions. The closed TLD can set all the rules for how the
>overall TLD is use, allocating 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, etc.
>names as they best suit its purpose. So the "restricted" would be
>FAR more than just validating credentials.
>
>Note that in our proposal the first characteristic we are looking
>for is TRUST. The proposal is designed to help build public trust in
>the TLD. AN open restricted domain MIGHT do that, but it might not.
>
>We were working on the presumption that one of the major concerns
>was predictability - that an application not be made that could be
>shot down in a multitude of ways and at the very least, subjected to
>long delays.
>
>So "follow the PICG rules, and the chances of actually being able to
>deploy the TLD are much better." And with that comes some conditions
>as you note.
>
>But as I started with, if there is no value to what we are
>proposing, then perhaps the best path is to simply forbid such closed TLDs.
>
>Alan
>
>At 2020-07-21 09:38 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote:
>
>
>Thanks for this proposal George and the team. The major item that
>jumps out at me is that the TLD structure you describe is not really
>a ?closed? TLD, but rather is akin an ?open restricted? TLD.
>
>Anyone can already apply for an ?open restricted? TLD without any of
>the restrictions you have set forth in this paper. This is like
>.bank, .pharmacy or others that have third party registrants who
>agree to very strict validation requirements. So, if I can apply
>for a .earthquake (your example) as an ?open restricted? TLD without
>any of the restrictions that are contained within your paper, why
>would I apply for your ?PICgTLD? and agree up front to (a) no
>expectancy of renewal; (b) restrictions on transfers; (c)
>obligations of a Council, (d) approval by the board, etc.? What is
>the benefit for me to do that when I can achieve the same thing
>without agreeing to any of that?
>
>Now if we stated that all of the registrations are ?owned? by the
>Registry itself for use in connection with itself and its members,
>then perhaps that gets closer to the closed TLD. Thus, the registry
>could ?license? registrations to third parties (not transfer
>ownership) so long as the registry itself always maintains ownership
>of the names and can control the type of content on the sites.
>
>Thanks for kicking off the discussion.
>
>[]
>
>
>[]
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Founder & CEO
>JJN Solutions, LLC
>p: +1.202.549.5079
>E: <mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>jeff at jjnsolutions.com
>http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
>From: Gnso-newgtld-wg
><<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
>Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM
>To: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public
>interest generic gTLDs
>
>All,
>
>As promised, attached is our proposed method of implementing the use
>of new closed generic top level domains in the public interest
>within the DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, Kathy
>Kleiman, Greg Shatan and me. We believe that it has merit and
>deserves consideration by both the working group and the broader
>ICANN community, and we welcome the opportunity to present it for
>comment, discussion and criticism. We believe that while there are
>improvements can be made, the approach of creating such a category
>of TLDs, trusted and protected to serve a public interest, is a goal
>that can be achieved.
>
>We hope that the proposal and the approach that it takes to
>implementing such a new class of gTLDs will receive serious
>consideration and criticism by the community.
>
>Regards,
>
>George
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
><mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
>your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (
>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
>Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the
>Mailman link above to change your membership status or
>configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200722/acd00220/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7bd3c0b.png
Type: image/png
Size: 113 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200722/acd00220/7bd3c0b-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7bd3c1b.png
Type: image/png
Size: 30008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200722/acd00220/7bd3c1b-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7bd3c78.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 708 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200722/acd00220/7bd3c78-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7bd3c88.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 16320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200722/acd00220/7bd3c88-0001.jpg>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list