[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Ayden Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com
Wed Jun 20 11:52:19 EEST 2018 

I think this is an important issue for us to comment on.

Background

Work did not begin on the allocation of reserved names until 2005-2007. Eventually, it was agreed by the GNSO Council to allow the allocation of the single letters in the legacy gTLDs and .biz and .info moved forward, as did .org. Those registries received significant fees or high registration fees -- $100,000 upwards, from what I understand -- but they did not actually apply them to do good for the community (despite those registries promising) to do that. No one knows where the money from .biz and .info went. The one exception is .org; PRI created a special project to support new NGOs.

For various reasons, now resolved, the allocation of the .com single letters have been delayed. Verisign and ICANN have agreed on a trial release of o.com, and that all the proceeds must go to do 'good deeds' for the Internet community. Remember this is a trial. It's o.com today, but could be t.com (Twitter?), g.com (Google), a.com (AT&T? Alphabet? someone else) tomorrow... The earlier policy work of the Reserved Names Working Group also discussed some of the projects that could be funded by the auction funds, and NCSG members like Avri contributed to this. However, RSEPs were left to define their processes in more detail, which is why the  .info, .biz, and .org allocations of single letters were all unique.

This is from the RSEP and .com Registry amendment:

Ten years ago the ICANN GNSO approved a document called the Single-Character Second-Level Domain Name (SC SLD) Allocation Framework. That Framework was posted for public comment back in 2007 and comments are summarized here. Consistent with that policy, the RSEP proposes that O.COM auction and proceeds “will be allocated through an auction managed by a third party auction service provider selected by Verisign.”

Second, Verisign has already designated several non-profit beneficiaries to receive the auction proceeds for O.Com.

Nonprofit Beneficiary
As referenced in the background section above, proceeds derived from the auction of the SCDN subject to this RSEP will be provided to at least one of the nonprofit organizations, or its successors, set forth on Exhibit A hereto. None of the auction proceeds will directly or indirectly be used to benefit Verisign, its affiliates, or its directors, officers, or employees, other than to the de minimis extent those proceeds are used by the nonprofit(s) to benefit the Internet community in general. The nonprofit's, including its successor's, mission will align the use of funds resulting from the auction of the SCDN toward areas of public good of the Internet community, which may include one or more of the following:

- development, evolution, and use of open Internet protocols

- enhancing the cybersecurity readiness and response of public and private sector entities

- online safety for children

- improving security, stability and universal accessibility of the Internet

- capacity building for the benefit of the Internet community (such as assisting those in developing areas in applying to become registries and registrars)

This is extremely narrow, though I am hopeful the terminology "may include" could allow for broader activities, and that is why I have put forward in my individual comments some alternative uses for these funds that would benefit the ICANN community. At a minimum, "capacity building for the benefit of the Internet community" should not be exclusively limited to a focus on growing registries and registrars.

Today is the last day for comments. I hope to see this auction move forward, and for the proceeds to go to support the kind of activities that benefit all of the ICANN community. It may not be possible to get an NCSG comment together, but individual comments - if feasible - are equally welcomed. Remember, this isn't just about o.com, it's about all the other single character domains too.

Best wishes, Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 20 June 2018 5:58 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180620/ee7006a3/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list