[npoc-voice] Current Problems with the ICANN .geographic TLD process

[Sam Lanfranco <lanfran@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear NPOC members,

The following is a "For Your Information" posting on issues surrounding 
geographic top level domains that are likely to impact on local NGO 
activities (*YOU*) as ICANN's gTLD process continues. The what, where, 
when and how of appropriate policy processes here are very unclear, but 
what is clear is that they will call for greater awareness and 
engagement at all levels, especially by NGOs, Civil Society, and 
national goverments. This is my posting to the NCSG discussion list. - 
Sam Lanfranco, NPOC Policy Committee Chair
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Current Problems with the .city TLD process
To:     NCSG-DISCUSS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


The following was written (by me) for the global health community's 
Health Information for All 2015 (HIFA2015) discussion group. HIFA2015 
had been a venue for vocal criticism of ICANN's handling of the .health 
gTLD. This drops down a notch to the .city TLD initiative and discusses 
a problem tossed up by the creation of .nyc. While the problem is with 
second level domain names, the parties to the problem have views on what 
should constitute a responsible role for ICANN here. The problem is 
complicated,and won't go away. It is another area where ICANN can be 
engaged and show leadership, or watch passively as Internet DNS naming 
policy is developed elsewhere. - Sam L.
*Posting for **HIFA2015@xxxxxxxxxxx*

The global health community has been vocal but, to date, largely 
unsuccessful in its struggle over the .health generic Top Level Domain 
name, now in the hands of a private-for-profit company. There is a 
second problem on the horizon, and it will strike closer to home for 
many organizations in the global health community. It has to do with 
geographic based domain names and second level domain names. For 
example, if .nairobi is a city TLD, health.narobi could be a second 
level domain name, owned by the city or a private company. This can 
create multiple issues for community groups. Here is already unfortunate 
current situation for community mental health groups in New York. The 
application period (so called Landrush) for second level .nyc domain 
names ended last Friday October 3rd. On Saturday one community health 
organization applicant received a notice from the registrar handling its 
application informing it that more than one applicant had requested the 
MentalHealth.nyc domain name, and that the domain name would be sold at 
auction with 60% of revenue going to the private company managing .nyc 
for New York City, and 40% to the city.
The problem here is that unlike the ICANN auctions there is no 
transparency with regard to who the various applicants are. As a second 
level domain issue ICANN has washed it hands of such issues. In the 
direct ICANN auctions the various applicants are known and can negotiate 
to avoid an auction or collaborate on bidding. None of that is possible 
here. The community health group in question is advocating for 
transparency as a basis for a collaborative dialogue around 
MentalHealth.nyc. If another party has a superior plan this community 
group would be prepared to withdraw its application. With a blind 
auction nobody has an idea of who the other bidders are. This 
organization is a half century old not-for-profit serving a small 
section of the city. Perhaps the others applicants do similar work. This 
community group is asking for some assurance of transparency for 
applicants at this second level, wishfully here, and certainly in any 
new gTLD efforts. It suggests that this should be part of an ICANN 
contract language driven Informed Consent process. This also raises an 
issue of what should be the role of local governments in setting the 
rules of the game for handling second level geographic TLD issues.
The further worry is that there is the possibility that the 
MentalHealth.nyc name could be sought by a comedy club, or maybe to 
market a magic health produce. While recognizing both of these might 
qualify as beneficial to mental health, the applicant argues that from a 
city perspective the more traditional health use of the name would be 
more appropriate. For this reason, they would like to see the ICANN 
Informed Consent provisions provide for greater transparency and 
multistakeholder engagement in selecting public interest name set-asides 
at the the .city and related geoTLD levels. If as a last resort an 
auction is necessary, they feel that the proceeds should be retained 
within the community and not siphoned off by the gTLD gate keepers. This 
is how the ICANN private auctions work where the proceeds of the auction 
are shared by the losing bidders.
What can global community health community people do here? First, they 
can press both ICANN and their respective national government 
representatives to ICANN's Government Advisory Council (GAC) for more 
appropriate second level provisions in the Informed Consent language of 
ICANN contracts. Second, they can watch efforts at local .city TLD and 
other geographic gTLDs in their home territories and engage their 
governments and the applicants early in the process. This will not be 
easy but it is just another “rules of the game” challenge flowing from 
the pandora's box of the Internet ecosystem.
Sam Lanfranco, Chair
ICANN/NPOC Policy Committee