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

[Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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