<<Over the longer term as I said there are better ways to architect brand services than putting up the price to make more band aids.>> Please elaborate. I also have a very strong feeling that .brands "categoyr" should be dealt with differently in subsequent rounds, to the benefit of all other intersted parties Best --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-13 09:56, Christian de Larrinaga escribió:
The challenge with a tax model is that ICANN is not representative. No MS is not representative it is a process methodology. ICANN has been captured for some years by those who have a financial interest in acting as middle men controlling who gets a domain name rooted by the DNS root server operators.
There should be no branding in the DNS - none. It is not technically capable as it stands of representing brands. Branding could be supported and integrated with the DNS. But the domain name itself is not the mechanism to use.
We've had over two decades of noise around IPRs in the DNS domain names. None of the solutions to this are anything more than band aids to try to stop a bit of bleeding. The emergence of brand TLDs has created opportunities to cut an artery or two. But the idea you cure somebody by putting up the price of the surgery does not look like a good idea for the patient. It looks self serving for the surgeon.
Over the longer term as I said there are better ways to architect brand services than putting up the price to make more band aids.
The short term problem is ICANN has misstepped by pushing for brand TLDs and accumulated a huge amount of money in the process. If it finds out that it needs to spend some or all of that to fix its mess then that is not an excuse for passing the buck on to others.
What ICANN should not do is sell more tld's in order to subsidise fixing those already available. At the end of the day the brands who bought into and own these domains are responsible for the good conduct and service to their users. They bought into it and it is to them that their users should and can seek redress if those brands don't stand up to the contract they made. ICANN no doubt has some responsibility and possibly some potential liability but it is a private sector body and has to live and die as such.
best
Christian
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Christian,
On 12/07/2018 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: Worth pointing out this note is proposing a tax basis for DNS not a cost recovery mechanism. Who gets this tax revenue? Who gets to set it? ICANN does not have the credentials. IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN in the long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or is it the cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need to have more ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than normal amount of misuse of domains under that TLD?
The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that money on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT.
What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs? I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP, if that has not already been discussed. Kindest regards,
Olivier
-- Christian de Larrinaga @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org