ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[npoc-voice]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx NPOC" <npoc-voice@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [npoc-voice] Current Problems with the ICANN .geographic TLD process
  • From: Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:26:17 +0100

Dear NPOC members

Just a quick follow up on Sams email. The problem with the geographic new gTLDs might look very abstract at first sight, but it becomes a real issue when _and just as a example_ someone registers and markets ngos.europe or lets say ongs.lac and your own ngo/ong can not freely be listed without paying a fee or other unreasonable conditions. Misused second level registrations are potentialy very harmful for all of us!

To solve this problem requires a grassroots effort and that in turn requires an informed and aware global not-for-profit community. It is NPOC goal to empower the global Not-For-Profits and the publication of the NPOC Manifesto,( http://www.npoc.org/?p=manifesto2014 ) is just one small step on the way to achieve this goal. The manifesto is more then just words, it is a call for action. Any organization that feels it would like to join NPOC in this effort, please let us know.

Yours

Klaus

On 10/7/2014 1:35 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
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





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy