Good evening: Whatever the merits, short comings of this proposal or otherwise, I am NOT prepared to go down this route. Here we have a major incumbent operator blatantly attempting to determine the conditions for new entrants. NO! ALAC should not be attempting to foist this procedure on At Large through CPWG. Out of scope! Let Neustar post their proposals to the PDP List just like everyone else. CW
On 17 Jan 2019, at 06:22, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:
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+Cons...>
Thanks,
Justine Chew -----
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 17:45, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@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+Cons...>
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@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 3rd 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 <http://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@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:23 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@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 <http://us.com/>” (“.de.com <http://de.com/>”, etc.) sell: www.us.com <http://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 <http://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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marita Moll Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2019 4:51 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>>; Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@bachollet.fr>> Cc: cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@bachollet.fr <mailto:sebicann@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@gih.com <mailto:ocl@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@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@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@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg