[NCSG-PC] O.com comment
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Jun 20 15:28:35 EEST 2018
I have to say, digging up Auerbach gems was one of the pleasures of my
diss research. He is great! Lets just quote it!
STephanie
On 2018-06-19 23:58, farzaneh badii 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
> theinternet as measured in terms of the ability of the upper layers of
> DNSto quickly, efficiently, and accurately transform DNS query packets
> intoDNS reply packets without prejudice against any query source or
> query name.In other words, what is being discussed here is an
> imposition on themarketplace of domain names for no purpose other than
> manipulation ofthat marketplace.There is no technical reason why ICANN
> should have any policy on thismatter.For ICANN to impose regulation in
> this area would be for ICANN, onceagin, to engage in social and
> economic regulation that is not warrantedby 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 <http://o.com>" forwhatever price is
> asked.The only question is what should Verisign, the .com registry, do
> withthe proceeds?Should the registry be allowed to retain those
> proceeds as a windfallprofit?Or should the registry be required to use
> those proceeds to buy down theoutrageous, fiat $7+ registry fee (using
> .com as an example of registryfees) and thus spreading the benefit to
> all registrants?The latter approach is more in keeping with the
> original idea thatregistries 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks
> Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 17:04, Ayden Férdeline
> <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <http://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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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.com <http://0.com>is
>>>>> still reserved as in the same
>>>>> process that reserved other 1
>>>>> character like o.com
>>>>> <http://o.com>, so the security
>>>>> risk may raise later if 0.com
>>>>> <http://0.com>is 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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <http://0.com>(number zero)? I
>>>>> think they could...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180620/1c5448c4/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list