Alex,

 

The “risk” you describe is the same risk that exists on any platform – Facebook, Insta, Twitter, yahoo, gmail, etc., and is not something that we need to protect anyone from.  The market will do that for us as it does in the aforementioned platforms.

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

-------- Original message --------
From: "Aikman-Scalese, Anne" <AAikman@lrrc.com>
Date: 7/22/20 20:16 (GMT+02:00)
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com>, gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs

Jeff,

If I understand what you are saying, the proposal put together by this group is not currently restricted because it is, in fact, an eligibility issue (and probably a GAC safeguard issue) and is not, in fact a Closed Generic and is not prohibited by the current rules or the Board’s Resolution on Closed Generics.  Is that right?

Anne

 

 

A lot to respond to here, but let me try:

 

Why is this not a Closed TLD Proposal

1. 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.

 

2. The proposal also provides for the expansion of the name space to include a larger group of organizations.
3. 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).
4. 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: 

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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."
   1. That is essentially what the proposal does.  I