Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
Dear Michele, I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Carlton
It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 *To: *At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Several of the .brands that have dropped their TLDs either weren’t using them at all or have rebranded. If the brand isn’t being used why have a TLD? As for cost – there’s also a cost for actually using them .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 14:42 To: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Dear Michele, I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org"<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 9:47 AM Michele Neylon - Blacknight, < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Several of the .brands that have dropped their TLDs either weren’t using them at all or have rebranded.
Carlton's original point still stands. ICANN steamrolls ahead with new rounds of TLDs, surrounded by those who have gone through lengthy, expensive acquisition processes only to walk away. The only constituencies within ICANN who want this continued march to oblivion are those with financial interest. And the march takes place during a period of increasing conflict with governments that demonstrates the naked hubris and disregard for the public interest. If ICANN had any sense of self-preservation it would put its pathetic expansion efforts on hold while it ponders the consequences of defying global privacy regulations. But the culture of industry entitlement is so deeply entrenched that such sensible reflection is unlikely. Still possible, but unlikely. And At-Large will still be there to help provide guidance should ICANN come to its senses. Otherwise, the lemming march continues and the multilaterals lay in wait. - Evan
I think that there's another POV which was argued out in the early 00's, which is, given appropriate reliability, security and social checks and balances, there is no compelling technical reason for tld's to be restricted. I'd say IDN spoofing is a way bigger issue than wilting brand tlds. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/look-alike-domains-and-visual-confusion/ On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 9:47 AM Michele Neylon - Blacknight, < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Several of the .brands that have dropped their TLDs either weren’t using them at all or have rebranded.
Carlton's original point still stands.
ICANN steamrolls ahead with new rounds of TLDs, surrounded by those who have gone through lengthy, expensive acquisition processes only to walk away.
The only constituencies within ICANN who want this continued march to oblivion are those with financial interest. And the march takes place during a period of increasing conflict with governments that demonstrates the naked hubris and disregard for the public interest.
If ICANN had any sense of self-preservation it would put its pathetic expansion efforts on hold while it ponders the consequences of defying global privacy regulations. But the culture of industry entitlement is so deeply entrenched that such sensible reflection is unlikely. Still possible, but unlikely. And At-Large will still be there to help provide guidance should ICANN come to its senses.
Otherwise, the lemming march continues and the multilaterals lay in wait.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
Or how about emojis? While they’re banned in gTLDs (mostly) they’re still permitted in a few of the ccTLDs -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <joly.nyc@gmail.com> on behalf of Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> Reply-To: "joly@punkcast.com" <joly@punkcast.com> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 16:41 To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> Cc: Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista I think that there's another POV which was argued out in the early 00's, which is, given appropriate reliability, security and social checks and balances, there is no compelling technical reason for tld's to be restricted. I'd say IDN spoofing is a way bigger issue than wilting brand tlds. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/03/look-alike-domains-and-visual-confusion/ On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 9:47 AM Michele Neylon - Blacknight, <michele@blacknight.com<mailto:michele@blacknight.com>> wrote: Several of the .brands that have dropped their TLDs either weren’t using them at all or have rebranded. Carlton's original point still stands. ICANN steamrolls ahead with new rounds of TLDs, surrounded by those who have gone through lengthy, expensive acquisition processes only to walk away. The only constituencies within ICANN who want this continued march to oblivion are those with financial interest. And the march takes place during a period of increasing conflict with governments that demonstrates the naked hubris and disregard for the public interest. If ICANN had any sense of self-preservation it would put its pathetic expansion efforts on hold while it ponders the consequences of defying global privacy regulations. But the culture of industry entitlement is so deeply entrenched that such sensible reflection is unlikely. Still possible, but unlikely. And At-Large will still be there to help provide guidance should ICANN come to its senses. Otherwise, the lemming march continues and the multilaterals lay in wait. - Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year. And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that. I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more. To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
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. Worth also pointing out that the "Internet" and that I think includes the naming architectures used for it are or at least should be "for everyone". In other words the Internet is not primarily a business platform but a means of inter connection open to all. bzs@theworld.com wrote:
A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year.
And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that.
I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more.
To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company.
-- Christian de Larrinaga
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
In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator. As a matter of fact, when ICANN's functions were executed by the US Gov., or when these functions were mandated to ICANN by the US Gov., all these functions were indeed the role of a regulator. Unfortunately, during the transaction, much of the attention was focused on accountability, transparancy, etc., while the true nature of ICANN's function was overlooked. That is, ICANN forgot what it is doing and what it is. Thus, if we restore ICANN's nature as playing the role of a regulator, the fees collected are naturally "regulatory fees", just the same as FCC of the US collects its fees. In the case of the FCC, these fees include the following (https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees): a.. Application Processing Fees for licenses, equipment approvals, antenna registrations, tariff filings, formal complaints (not ordinary complaints), and other authorizations and regulatory actions. b.. Annual Regulatory Fees collected from specific categories of regulated entities in the mass media, common carrier, wireless, international and cable television services. c.. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees for processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. d.. Auction Payments for upfront payments, down payments, and subsequent payments for licenses that the FCC auctions. e.. Forfeitures are penalties that the FCC may assess for violations of law or noncompliance with authorizations. For example, the fees paid by a long-distance service provider are $0.00302 per dollar of its revenue. As long as FCC is non-profit, this has nothing to do with the cost of regulating this particular service provider. Therefore, as inherited from the US Government, ICANN has the full credentials for collecting these regulatory fees, or taxes, from the entities it regulates, i.e., the registries and registrars. Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond To: Christian de Larrinaga ; bzs@theworld.com Cc: LACRALO discussion list ; ICANN At-Large list Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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
My dear Kaili, I hope you are well and I want to comment on your email, but starting with your first sentence <<In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator>> I already see a lot of alternative paths here: #1 most usage of the word regulator in our circles are about "content regulation". And it is the standard answer that ICANN is NO content regulator. #2 a standar usage of the "regulator" role is realted to case where private service providers of public goods have different interstes than the final users of those goods and/or services. The funny thing here is that ICANN does assign public goods, but to operational entities, that may have or not different purpose that the users of those goods. So the question arises who regulates the Registrars and Registries (Rr/Ry) - Registrant interface. This is the classic case of the privacy issue that has taken us here. But the contracts (that indirectly regulate WHOIS privacy) are not between the users and the Registrars and Registries. In this case are bilateral contracts, folllowing bottom-up multistakeholder policy, but in the end, factually negotiated without the participation of the final user ( so much for the model). #3 I don't share the view, last expressed by Seun, that the $ 185k and auction fees are "regulatory" fees. Those are the so called costs of the expansion.Only the $ 0.25/year per registered domain name should be considered under the cowt of regulation. The former are just windfall profits for the manager of the expansion.......which by the way operates under a non-for-profit framework. So, before we loose track of Carlton's inital question, we have to narrow down the expecation of the regulator in ICANN. Otherwise we will loose track. Best friendly regards --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-12 19:56, Kan Kaili escribió:
As a matter of fact, when ICANN's functions were executed by the US Gov., or when these functions were mandated to ICANN by the US Gov., all these functions were indeed the role of a regulator. Unfortunately, during the transaction, much of the attention was focused on accountability, transparancy, etc., while the true nature of ICANN's function was overlooked. That is, ICANN forgot what it is doing and what it is.
Thus, if we restore ICANN's nature as playing the role of a regulator, the fees collected are naturally "regulatory fees", just the same as FCC of the US collects its fees. In the case of the FCC, these fees include the following (https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees):
* Application Processing Fees [1] for licenses, equipment approvals, antenna registrations, tariff filings, formal complaints (not ordinary complaints), and other authorizations and regulatory actions. * Annual Regulatory Fees [2] collected from specific categories of regulated entities in the mass media, common carrier, wireless, international and cable television services. * Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Fees [3] for processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. * Auction Payments [4] for upfront payments, down payments, and subsequent payments for licenses that the FCC auctions. * Forfeitures [5] are penalties that the FCC may assess for violations of law or noncompliance with authorizations.
For example, the fees paid by a long-distance service provider are $0.00302 per dollar of its revenue. As long as FCC is non-profit, this has nothing to do with the cost of regulating this particular service provider.
Therefore, as inherited from the US Government, ICANN has the full credentials for collecting these regulatory fees, or taxes, from the entities it regulates, i.e., the registries and registrars.
Kaili
----- Original Message ----- FROM: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond TO: Christian de Larrinaga ; bzs@theworld.com CC: LACRALO discussion list ; ICANN At-Large list SENT: Thursday, July 12, 2018 10:51 PM SUBJECT: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista 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
-------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/application-processing-fees [2] https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees/regulatory-fees [3] https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/guides/how-file-foia-request [4] http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=about_auctions [5] https://www.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/fcc97218.html
Dear Olivier Please see inline: On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:21 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> 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.
It need not be called a tax revenue model, but by a term such as "DNS fees" payable for every domain, required to maintain the DNS as global, stable, secure and fair. It seems uniformly subsidized at present level for the benefit of the global Internet user at 18 cents per domain through the Registrar after 25 cents per domain indirectly collected from gTLD registries, but not from all Registries. This could be more, much more, after providing for even zero fees or/and lower fees (10 cents or so) for the first 10,000 names by a new Registry / Registrar, some exceptionally limited Community TLDs, to actually become a dollar as total direct and indirect Registrant fee to ICANN. Also, what happens when someone pays US $ 13 million or an unknown sum in an unspoken of transaction? A dollar to ICANN? Could be a million as premium fee. Quite a moot point, could be voluntary for Registries. The rationale arises from considering, in concept, not as much by legal assertion, all names as "owned" by All Users with ICANN as the Trustee, and the Registries / Registrars as lessors of the name for a year, two, ten or more, with fair and routine consideration by ICANN in accordance with business conventions for routine extensions to continue operations in their respective space, and for the Registrant similar considerations to extend the registrations. ICANN's revenues are disproportionately low which constrains it's mission unacknowledged. Sivasubramanian M
What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs?
Corporations, especially the ones who desire their own TLDs, spend hundreds of million to build up their brands, and some brands spend in billions on advertising. The current gTLD application fee has been arrived so as to make the process approachable by applicants across the world, by small applicants and individuals. Brands are on the top end of this spectrum. Yes, there could be a different fee structure for brands of such global scope that they prefer to have that brand name as global gTLD. I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP,
if that has not already been discussed. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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
-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com
Sending it to LAC discuss again in a translatable format in shorter sentences, following an automated message from transbot-no-reply@icann.org: On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:28 AM Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Olivier
Please see inline:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:21 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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.
It need not be considered "a tax revenue model"; it could be named as "DNS fees". DNS fees is payable for every domain, it is required to maintain the DNS as a global, stable, secure and fair infrastructure. The fees are uniformly subsidized at present level for the benefit of the global Internet user; It is US $ 0.18 (18 cents) per domain through the Registrar and another US $ 0. 25 (25 cents) per domain indirectly collected from gTLD registries.
The DNS fees could be more, much more. The DNS fees could even be zero, or fixed lower at 10 cents for the first 10,000 names by a new Registry / Registrar, and for some exceptionally limited Community TLDs. For established TLDs the fees can be set as US $ 1 per Registration in total.
Also, what happens when someone pays US $ 13 million for a Domain Name? Or what happens when an unknown sum in an unspoken of transaction for a Premium Domain Name? Would ICANN still get US $ 1 as fees? This could even be set as a million dollars of premium fees. This is quite a moot point, and this could be voluntary for Registries.
The rationale arises from considering, in concept, not as much by legal assertion, the following: All names are "owned" by All Users. ICANN is the Trustee. The Registries / Registrars are lessors of the names. The names are leased out to the Registrant for a year or two years or ten years or even longer. In fairness ICANN could routinely consider and grant Registries the extensions to operate. These extension could be routinely granted in accordance with business conventions, for Registries to continue operations in their respective space. The Registrant will get similar considerations to extend the individual name registrations.
ICANN's revenues are disproportionately low. This constrains it's mission unacknowledged.
What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs?
Corporations, especially the ones who desire their own TLDs, spend hundreds of million to build up their brands, and some brands spend in billions on advertising.
The current gTLD application fee is low. This is to make the process approachable by applicants across the world, and approachable by small applicants and individuals. Brands are on the top end of this spectrum. Yes, there could be a different fee structure for brands. Escpecially to brands of such global scope that they prefer to have that brand name as global gTLD.
Sivasubramanian M
I gather that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP,
if that has not already been discussed. Kindest regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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
-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ 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
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
Dear Christian, thanks for your comment. Please see my comment inline: On 13/07/2018 09:56, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
What ICANN should not do is sell more tld's in order to subsidise fixing those already available.
With currently falling revenues and rising costs due to inflation, ICANN is under pressure to create more revenue streams and a quick fix is to go for another new gTLD round. As for "fixing" TLDs that are already available, ICANN not being a regulator, it is argued that it is not in its mandate to fix anything, except if the new gTLDs endanger the actual technical stability of the DNS, which we've seen is not the case. Kindest regards, Olivier
So it is worse than I realised? If I've understood you ICANN believes itself to be free to break anything to create revenue for itself and sees no obligation to fix what is broken as a result? That's a pretty depressing state of affairs. best C Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Christian,
thanks for your comment. Please see my comment inline:
On 13/07/2018 09:56, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
What ICANN should not do is sell more tld's in order to subsidise fixing those already available.
With currently falling revenues and rising costs due to inflation, ICANN is under pressure to create more revenue streams and a quick fix is to go for another new gTLD round. As for "fixing" TLDs that are already available, ICANN not being a regulator, it is argued that it is not in its mandate to fix anything, except if the new gTLDs endanger the actual technical stability of the DNS, which we've seen is not the case. Kindest regards,
Olivier
Fyi: Filter out LACRALO since am not a member Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 08:57 Christian de Larrinaga, <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:
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.
SO: +1
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.
SO: +1~ I guess it's one of the reason why a rushed next round could emphasis the rigmarole.
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.
SO: Once again, I agree. Regards
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
I don’t want to open a big can of worms, but there are substantial differences between applications. Some are in view of having a financial return, some for the promotion of a brand, some for the support of a community, some just to widen the access to the internet for people using different languages and scripts…. I don’t think that the current “one size fits all” approach of $185K+$25K/year is appropriate, but I also think that changing the figures but keeping the approach will be of any help for the community as a whole. R. PS: I keep LACRALO in cc, but my message is likely to be rejected because I am not a member thereof
On 12.07.2018, at 05:49, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year.
And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that.
I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more.
To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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
Although perhaps implied in one of the categories you list I find it interesting that "allowing trademark holders to operate under their brand string where collisions exist" isn't in this short list. If one raises that issue most everyone understands what or why that might be important but it's rarely discussed beyond that. I wonder why? Why is the domain name sapce simultaneously so closely connected to trademarks yet so disconnected from explicit policy beyond perhaps TMCH (which works against any resolution), first come first served (similar problem), and of course URS and other conflict resolution mechanisms after the fact? It seems to me it's the (silent) elephant in the room in these discussions. On July 12, 2018 at 11:40 roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Roberto Gaetano) wrote:
I don’t want to open a big can of worms, but there are substantial differences between applications. Some are in view of having a financial return, some for the promotion of a brand, some for the support of a community, some just to widen the access to the internet for people using different languages and scripts…. I don’t think that the current “one size fits all” approach of $185K+$25K/year is appropriate, but I also think that changing the figures but keeping the approach will be of any help for the community as a whole. R.
PS: I keep LACRALO in cc, but my message is likely to be rejected because I am not a member thereof
On 12.07.2018, at 05:49, bzs@theworld.com wrote:
A major problem with nTLDs, including (and particularly) brand nTLDS, is ICANN should have charged, and should going forward, millions for them, not $185K+$25K/year.
And if any were deserving but not financially capable they could be handled on a case by case basis. It's not like it's difficult to give something away so let's not bog ourselves down in that.
I think $2.5M for a new gTLD and $5M for a brand TLD sounds pretty reasonable, and $100K/$250K/year, maybe more.
To quote a recent note here it's not much for a Fortune 500 company.
-- -Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* _______________________________________________ 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
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them. Alan At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Michele,
I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Carlton
Itâs a .brand zero ânormalâ registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isnât.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains <https://www.blacknight.com/>https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: <https://michele.blog/>https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: <https://ceo.hosting/>https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: At-Large <mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com><carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>"lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org><lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them. Alan At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Michele, I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal†registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org"<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Yes, that's what I wondered. I mean, having gone through the motions and all the work to apply, it seems strange to let go of such a mark, except if the crowded trademark space around "vista" was more a liability than an asset. https://bit.ly/2LciD0g Kindest regards, Olivier On 11/07/2018 16:28, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 *To: *Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them.
Alan
At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Michele,
I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Carlton It’s a .brand – zero “normal†registrants or users will be impacted If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 *From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 *To: *At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Yes. Was just answering Olivier's question. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On July 11, 2018 10:28:38 AM EDT, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 To: Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon <michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them.
Alan
At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Michele,
I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Carlton
It’s a .brand – zero “normal†registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org"<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
I wonder whether there is a wider conversation here to be had about many of the economic premises and justifications behind new gTLDs... On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:48 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Yes. Was just answering Olivier's question.
Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On July 11, 2018 10:28:38 AM EDT, Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Date: *Wednesday 11 July 2018 at 15:27 *To: *Olivier Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Michele Neylon < michele@blacknight.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, " lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them.
Alan
At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Michele,
I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:
Carlton
It’s a .brand – zero “normal†registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 *To: *At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
<lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________
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
On July 11, 2018 at 14:28 michele@blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) wrote:
That’s a tiny amount of money for a Fortune 500 etc
That might be true in the big scheme of things but go ask your BigCo manager for $25K for something s/he thinks is frivolous and see what answer you get. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
I agree Alan, an important part of the homework Carlton gave us, is to analyze the cash flow impact on ICANN finances of ¨wilting¨ TLDs I like this definition, and as an ESL person really appreciate Joly´s prose a nice weekend to all! --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-11 16:23, Alan Greenberg escribió:
Over and above anything else, there is the $25k annual registry fee plus whatever their registry operator is charging them.
Alan
At 11/07/2018 09:42 AM, Olivier MJ CrÃ(c)pin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Michele,
I wonder why they are dropping it. Does it cost them more in the long run, than using several composed domains? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 11/07/2018 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: Carlton
ItâEUR(tm)s a .brand - zero âEURœnormalâEUR registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isnâEUR(tm)t.
Regards
Michele
-- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ [1] Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
FROM: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> DATE: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 TO: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> SUBJECT: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... [2]
-Carlton
============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en [3]
_______________________________________________ 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 Links: ------ [1] http://blacknight.blog/ [2] https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... [3] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Michele: Thanks for telling me what I know. Notice what I said. Maybe I was too cryptic to follow I know the distinction - and by virtue, the implications for dropping out! - between a tld owner and a domain name investor. Sure, as a brand tld, the registrar's (your?) interest is zero zip; not a dime to you and the immediate interest of the "normal" registrant. Yessir, I agree. The disconnect seems to be what that could mean for the overall market in general and ICANN, in particular. One less tld in the root may not actually mean less expansion. Because to paraphrase one Englishman, one swallow does not make a summer. Get two, three, four others seeing the "light", now that might be something, isn't it? Consider the direct ICANN impact. Last time they took in what, $185K apiece from each brand owner for the right to get in on the ground floor. I believe these flow as income somewhere to the ICANN pot and actually expresses continued viability and vitality for the GDD, seeing they do get a few cents for each domain name declared and "sold". Forget the $185K down the drain some brand retire and turn in their license. I posit when some brand owner decides a tld investment is neither a strategic investment nor shiny toy today, it sends a chilling effect on what might be the next round now bandied about. Those who will hear the next bright strategist say I think we ought to get a tld for brand protection and service impact or whatever, some grizzled ole fool will be sufficiently empowered to tell him sit down before you hurt yourself. As for the retail side, keep a keen eye on the renewals, especially for all those 'parked' domains held by Eastern investors. If you see a dip in their renewals, then we might be witnessing a wave, not just an indicator. Then we would have a real worry. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:27 AM Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele@blacknight.com> wrote:
Carlton
It’s a .brand – zero “normal” registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn’t.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
*From: *At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 *To: *At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, " lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject: *[At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
Thanks Michele! Even if it has zero registrations, ICANN made a nice chunk of income out of it. Should they get their money back? Cheers --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-11 10:27, Michele Neylon - Blacknight escribió:
Carlton
It's a .brand - zero "normal" registrants or users will be impacted
If it was a TLD with actual registrations then it would be a totally different matter, but it isn't.
Regards
Michele
--
Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845
FROM: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> DATE: Tuesday 10 July 2018 at 21:10 TO: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> SUBJECT: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ 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
Helluva thing indeed On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, 8:10 am Carlton Samuels, <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Carlton, I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs. But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP. I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes Wish you a nice weekend --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ 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
Interesting, Carlos. That point of view is quite relevant to WT5, and the wider related discussion regarding “Sponsored” gTLDs & “Community Applications”. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jul 14, 2018, at 4:10 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs.
But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP.
I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes
Wish you a nice weekend
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ 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
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
Thanks for chiming in Javier! The biggest lesson I carry from my work with Carlton in the CCT-RT is that while the "one-size-fist-all" framework for application and evaluation is quite use full and profitable for $ 185k per application, all wins get more than destroyed in the asymetric conditions for delegation. A purely economic appraisal as Carlton suggests, is poisonous to the people that still believe in the interest of small cultural, linguistic and sub-regional communities that still beg for a reasonable access to the DNS. I wish you a very nice Sunday --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-14 14:10, Javier Rua escribió:
Interesting, Carlos. That point of view is quite relevant to WT5, and the wider related discussion regarding "Sponsored" gTLDs & "Community Applications".
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jul 14, 2018, at 4:10 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs.
But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP.
I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes
Wish you a nice weekend
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== _Carlton A Samuels_ Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Carlos, Agree that asymmetrical policies and conditions (I avoid using the word regulation on purpose) should be minimized as much as possible, and we should strive to even abolish them. There are few things more defeating to the human spirit (including the spirit of applicants) than arbitrary, capricious or unpredictable results for like situations. In WT5 we have had some good discussion on principles like “Increasing predictability for all parties” as well as “simplicity– simple to understand, follow, and implement policies and procedures”, concepts that are quite akin to “legality” and the “rule of law” in wider discussions. It will be a triumph for the whole Community if we end up with new gTLD policies that are non-contradictory, standardized, predictable, easy to find and understand, and of course are legitimized by a strong consensus. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jul 14, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Thanks for chiming in Javier!
The biggest lesson I carry from my work with Carlton in the CCT-RT is that while the "one-size-fist-all" framework for application and evaluation is quite use full and profitable for $ 185k per application, all wins get more than destroyed in the asymetric conditions for delegation.
A purely economic appraisal as Carlton suggests, is poisonous to the people that still believe in the interest of small cultural, linguistic and sub-regional communities that still beg for a reasonable access to the DNS.
I wish you a very nice Sunday
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-07-14 14:10, Javier Rua escribió:
Interesting, Carlos. That point of view is quite relevant to WT5, and the wider related discussion regarding "Sponsored" gTLDs & "Community Applications".
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jul 14, 2018, at 4:10 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> wrote:
Dear Carlton,
I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs.
But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP.
I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes
Wish you a nice weekend
--- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA
El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió:
Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG?
Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects.
On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing!
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai...
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Also relevant, in my opinion, as I stated today in the GNSO subsequent procedures is avoid auctions. The process that leaded to auction in 2012 was awful – people think in one string, prepare all organization and others just prepare the package without string. Once one apply those just jump copying the string… in my view this is not fair for the community, especially for some of them, not big organization, that had then to face powerful adversaries in an expensive auction process. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: At-Large <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> Date: Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 11:36 To: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se> Cc: LACRALO list <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista Carlos, Agree that asymmetrical policies and conditions (I avoid using the word regulation on purpose) should be minimized as much as possible, and we should strive to even abolish them. There are few things more defeating to the human spirit (including the spirit of applicants) than arbitrary, capricious or unpredictable results for like situations. In WT5 we have had some good discussion on principles like “Increasing predictability for all parties” as well as “simplicity– simple to understand, follow, and implement policies and procedures”, concepts that are quite akin to “legality” and the “rule of law” in wider discussions. It will be a triumph for the whole Community if we end up with new gTLD policies that are non-contradictory, standardized, predictable, easy to find and understand, and of course are legitimized by a strong consensus. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Jul 14, 2018, at 10:05 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Thanks for chiming in Javier! The biggest lesson I carry from my work with Carlton in the CCT-RT is that while the "one-size-fist-all" framework for application and evaluation is quite use full and profitable for $ 185k per application, all wins get more than destroyed in the asymetric conditions for delegation. A purely economic appraisal as Carlton suggests, is poisonous to the people that still believe in the interest of small cultural, linguistic and sub-regional communities that still beg for a reasonable access to the DNS. I wish you a very nice Sunday --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-14 14:10, Javier Rua escribió: Interesting, Carlos. That point of view is quite relevant to WT5, and the wider related discussion regarding "Sponsored" gTLDs & "Community Applications". Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Jul 14, 2018, at 4:10 AM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>> wrote: Dear Carlton, I support your suggestion of following up on the (market) success, or lack of it, of individual new gTLDs. But to make it effective, my suggestion has always been to do it within the categories segment of the Subsequent Procedures PDP. I see a great difference between a single firm, which sees no economic sense in spending defensive or marketing money on their own ¨Brand¨ TLD on the one side, and a very small country and/or geographic sub-unit (particular if bound by some common cultural traits) that wants to develop its internet presence, even if they will have to subsidize it TLD, by hosting it in a public entity (like fundacion .cat). In the second case I would worry much more, if the TLD dies or gets acquired for other purposes Wish you a nice weekend --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-07-10 22:09, Carlton Samuels escribió: Maybe we should track these 'returns/abandonments' and in context, [re]read the recommendations of the Subsequent Procedures WG? Saw a story of a domain investor account of his return on investment so far; he's in the red with diminishing prospects. On top of these kind of stories that speak to the conditions in the end user market and the 'retired and/or abandoned gLTDs, it just seems 'otherworldly' to me that in all the happy talk of new rounds, this idea that demand has something to do with markets is largely left unmentioned. Helluva thing! https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domai... -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (17)
-
Alan Greenberg -
bzs@theworld.com -
Carlos Raul Gutierrez -
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
Javier Rua -
Joly MacFie -
Kan Kaili -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Seun Ojedeji -
Sivasubramanian M -
sivasubramanian muthusamy -
Vanda Scartezini