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