[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Wed Jun 20 06:58:14 EEST 2018

Hi everyone

I did some research about the history of allocation of such domains. And
came across really interesting comments. One worth referencing which I copy
paste below.

I am surprised that people are commenting on how the funds should be used!
This is really not what ICANN asked to comment on. Am I missing something?
It is pretty clear from page 6 that funds will go to nonprofit (s) and that
it will remain confidential and will be used for public good. which is a
terrible idea but it's not what we are asked to comment on. I might be
wrong. I looked at the list of those who submitted comments and many of
them had written a paragraph on how funds should be allocated! So I might
be wrong.

I also don't understand what the fuss is about these single letter domains
being reserved! It is clear that they do not threaten security/stability of
the Internet, they have not led to terrible trademark infringement ... why
reserve it? And why regulate their allocation? They are scarce resource?
Then auction is a good idea, which was decided a decade ago. The registries
should be incentivized to keep auctioning these single domain names so I
think they should decide what to do with the money. Give it to the charity
or spend it on fancy cars or Internet stability or like Auerbach says just
sell it to someone for some dollars . A rich ICANN has always led to bad
decisions and ballooned number of staff and bad ideas.

I am now feeling less guilty - it was not an important public comment only
ALAC  had submitted a comment up until I checked from the ICANN SO/ACs
others were individuals . But I got to read some interesting stuff. First
of all, Auerbach totally captured what I was thinking. we can just submit
Auerbach comment:) **joke***

This issue is purely one of economic and business regulation.

There is no issue here that relates to the technical stability of the internet
as measured in terms of the ability of the upper layers of DNS to quickly,
efficiently, and accurately transform DNS query packets into DNS reply
packets without prejudice against any query source or query name.

In other words, what is being discussed here is an imposition on the
marketplace
of domain names for no purpose other than manipulation of that marketplace.

There is no technical reason why ICANN should have any policy on this
matter.

For ICANN to impose regulation in this area would be for ICANN, once agin,
to engage in social and economic regulation that is not warranted by any
risk to the technical infrastructure of the net and DNS.

We all know that Overstock will turn heaven and earth to buy "o.com"
for whatever
price is asked.

The only question is what should Verisign, the .com registry, do with the
proceeds?

Should the registry be allowed to retain those proceeds as a windfall
profit?

Or should the registry be required to use those proceeds to buy down
the outrageous,
fiat $7+ registry fee (using .com as an example of registry fees) and thus
spreading the benefit to all registrants?

The latter approach is more in keeping with the original idea that registries
were to be largely nothing more than a cost+ service provider.

*John Berryhill one of my fav domain lawyers:*

Why only kill the Golden Goose once?

Consider a combination of an initial auction coupled with an annual
registration fee that is some fraction of the auction price.

For example, "Auction + 10% Annual Fee" - If the auction is won at $1M, then
the annual registration fee is $100K.  Kurt can play with the proportion to
whatever degree required.

Alternatively, it would be great to take all of the domain applicants,
provide them with suitable medieval weaponry, and turn them loose in an
arena.  The sole survivor wins the domain name.  This would be a great ICANN
meeting host event.

I've been petitioning the ABA to advocate the renewal of "trial by combat"
for years now, and the success of this method could be helpful.

Farzaneh

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:55 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I volunteered for this but lost track of time, so am guilty! I also
> thought we had until Friday. I will look at it if I get the time tonight
> and see if I can submit something personally.
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi ,
>>
>> I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. we can
>> discuss how we can improve things later. I am not blaming anyone here.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 19:34, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension
>>> because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with
>>> asking for extension is unprofessional.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 17:04, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new
>>>>> accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we
>>>> can add the new consultation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to
>>>>> require extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request
>>>>> them that is their prerogative.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization
>>>> and that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and
>>>>> before staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of
>>>>> course, or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission.
>>>>> I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional"
>>>>> since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or
>>>>> with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment
>>>>> was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure
>>>>> inclusion.
>>>>> there are only 6 open public comments now.
>>>>> we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit.
>>>>> we are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying
>>>>> till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without
>>>>> some discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 16:48, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the
>>>>>> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is
>>>>>> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a
>>>>>> particular public comment (along with bias). I’m not sure there is any
>>>>>> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the
>>>>>> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments
>>>>>> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't
>>>>>> think they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff
>>>>>> reaction first as they factor in their response when they have to start
>>>>>> working on the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on.
>>>>>> the extension at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft
>>>>>> if not possible to get input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 à 23:47, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following
>>>>>>> points:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the
>>>>>>> Internet community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive
>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of
>>>>>>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity
>>>>>>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at
>>>>>>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities
>>>>>>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to
>>>>>>> support CROP).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is
>>>>>>> Wednesday, and given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the
>>>>>>> next week (and we know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to
>>>>>>> need an extension of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should
>>>>>>> just try to meet this deadline?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden Férdeline <
>>>>>>> icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the
>>>>>>>> deadline is in two days time...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>>>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask
>>>>>>>> those who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar
>>>>>>>> issue is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked
>>>>>>>> on and followed closely. she may give us some guidance here.
>>>>>>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN
>>>>>>>> but for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely
>>>>>>>> separate from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is
>>>>>>>> that will encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on
>>>>>>>> these uncertain auctions to fund community activities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that
>>>>>>>> reserved other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may
>>>>>>>> raise later if 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved
>>>>>>>> list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this
>>>>>>>> Monday.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 à 06:10, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character
>>>>>>>>> gTLDs vis-a-vis this comment
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en>on
>>>>>>>>> the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some time,
>>>>>>>>> however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a comment
>>>>>>>>> on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri
>>>>>>>>> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html>back
>>>>>>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the
>>>>>>>>> sale of O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I
>>>>>>>>> am opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an
>>>>>>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome
>>>>>>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN
>>>>>>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put
>>>>>>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with
>>>>>>>>> 0.com(number zero)? I think they could...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ayden
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180619/7f00424d/attachment.htm>