Well, I'm inclined to agree then.
Nicolas
On 2014-10-07 4:33 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
> I will give a short response to these Adam's comments. One of the
> unfortunate features of the administration of the .nyc cityTLD is that
> a second level string, in this case the MentalHealth.nyc with multiple
> applicants is facing an auction process where community applicants
> have fewer rights than commercial applicants using the ICANN private
> auction process for gTLDs.
>
> In ICANN gTLDs with multiple qualified applicants the commercial
> interests have transparency as to who the other applicants are, and
> are are encouraged to collaborate among themselves. If that fails and
> they resort to ICANN private auctions, the winners compensate the
> losers. There should be at least a discussion within ICANN as to
> whether or not a similar process should required of registries when an
> initial new gTLD "landrush" produces multiple second level applicants.
> In short, this New York community health group is only asking: "What
> about the same transparency and the same private auction rules that
> apply to new gTLDs?".
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 07/10/2014 4:10 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>>
>> On 07/10/2014 8:05 AM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>>> 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 **[log in to unmask]*
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I fail to see what bad may happen if a company other than the
>> community group bids for and obtain the mentalhealth string in the
>> NYC TLD. The scenarios where this would contribute to a losse of
>> influence for the community are not realistic. The successful bidder
>> will need top notch content to make it work, and the community that
>> does the work is that content. If a comedic business model is
>> envisioned, I fail to see how that would negatively impact the
>> community as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I agree! And i am willing to wager that the successful bidder will
>> also be thinking just that ;)
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Neither easy nor necessary.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Sam Lanfranco, Chair
>>> ICANN/NPOC Policy Committee
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email:[log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco
> blog:http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
|