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> 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

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

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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/>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!

<https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domain/>https://domainnamewire.com/2018/07/10/vistaprint-drops-vista-top-level-domain/

-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

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

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

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

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

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> <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

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

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

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 ============================= _______________________________________________ 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

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