+1

 

 

 

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.  It will not allow one organization to apply for a gTLD and only distribute the second level names to itself or its members.
   2. 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.
   3. 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”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
http://jjnsolutions.com
 
 
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Sadowsky
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg@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
Gnso-newgtld-wg@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.