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