--- rubensk@gmail.com wrote: From: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com>
As places like that see $186,000 as small change, I wonder what other countries (much less the cities within them) like .nu, .sb or .vu will do? For them this is an astronomical number. Someone's about to hit a financial home run reminiscient of the tech-stock bubble...
No countries were obliged to apply. Both country codes and country names were excluded from the new gTLD process. Actually, they couldn't even apply, as they are considered ccTLDs.
I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators paying the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries mors when they are able to make the purchase? Please don't suggest arbitration because that only increases the cost to those countries.
Thank you for explaining this. Again, probably. So the cities in those countries could buy them (if they could afford them) but not the countries? So .portvila is available, but not .vanuatu? What about places like Singapore? The city name is the same as the country name. "I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators paying the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries mors when they are able to make the purchase?" s/tiny countries/cities in tiny countries/ Does the speculator issue have to go to arbitration? scott
Thank you for explaining this. Again, probably.
So the cities in those countries could buy them (if they could afford them) but not the countries? So .portvila is available, but not .vanuatu?
Yes. Country names will be part of the expansion of the ccTLD space, where usually countries are not asked to pay evaluation fees, just annual fees much like current country codes. What about places like Singapore? The city name is the same as
the country name.
Excluded by being a country name.
"I haven't read enough, but what's to stop speculators paying the $186,000 then charging the tiny countries mors when they are able to make the purchase?"
s/tiny countries/cities in tiny countries/
Does the speculator issue have to go to arbitration?
The $185k is an evaluation fee, not a "buy now" price. Part of the evaluation process is to determine if the string has a geographic nature, and if does, if there is proper government support. There could be issues if a city name that is not in the ISO lists (nation capitals, state names) that happens to be a plausible non-geographic name. Let's take Sao Paulo (largest brazilian city) for example: it's the name of a catholic saint in Portuguese, so an applicant claiming to a be a gTLD targeted at the saint devotees could in theory apply (it's not the case as Sao Paulo is also a state name listed in ISO 3166) and after getting the delegation repurpose it to serve Sao Paulo individuals and businesses. Besides many objection procedures, one of them a community rights objection that could be used in a case such as the one I described, governments have a veto power that even requiring consensus among representatives would probably be used to stop the application. Both mechanisms (objections and government veto) are in play at two TLDs facing opposition from south-american countries: .amazon (from Amazon Inc., opposed by countries of the Amazon region like Brazil and Peru ) and .patagonia (opposed by the region of same name encompassing Argentina and Chile). The outcomes of both will likely be known this month at ICANN's meeting in Durban. Summary: there are residual risks, but the checks and balances of the process are likely to stop bad actors, at the cost of also stopping some good actors. Error in the side of caution preferred. Rubens
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
Summary: there are residual risks, but the checks and balances of the process are likely to stop bad actors, at the cost of also stopping some good actors. Error in the side of caution preferred.
You're missing the forest.... If a new gTLD applicant decides to "capitalize" on their financial investment once they have received approval, there is nothing stopping them from opening the flood gates to anyone who wants to register sub-domains/second-level domains for financial gain. Of course, they should be allowed to do so. It's a free market. Just look at .cc and the complete Charlie Foxtrot they caused by allowing second-level domains to be used by anyone for any purpose (e.g. *.co.cc, *.cu.cc, etc.) and .tk for instance. We can expect a lot more of the same with the expansion of the TLD space, so it *will* require a lot more diligence. - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
Summary: there are residual risks, but the checks and balances of the process are likely to stop bad actors, at the cost of also stopping some good actors. Error in the side of caution preferred.
You're missing the forest....
If a new gTLD applicant decides to "capitalize" on their financial investment once they have received approval, there is nothing stopping them from opening the flood gates to anyone who wants to register sub-domains/second-level domains for financial gain.
Of course, they should be allowed to do so. It's a free market.
Just look at .cc and the complete Charlie Foxtrot they caused by allowing second-level domains to be used by anyone for any purpose (e.g. *.co.cc, *.cu.cc, etc.) and .tk for instance.
New gTLDs aren't allowed to register 2-letter country-codes like co.<TLD> without clearance from government of that country. Considering gTLDs pay ICANN fees by domain if they go higher than 50k domains, it's unlikely that a registry business model will go in the same direction as the repurposed ccTLDs
We can expect a lot more of the same with the expansion of the TLD space, so it *will* require a lot more diligence.
Current working version of the Registry Agreement, following advice from governments, established requirements for security monitoring for ICANN, registries and registrars, so you should probably wait until ICANN board publishes it to assess whether such diligence is already being provisioned into the system or not. From http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-ii... "Registry Operator will periodically conduct a technical analysis to assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats, such as pharming, phishing, malware, and botnets. Registry Operator will maintain statistical reports on the number of security threats identified and the actions taken as a result of the periodic security checks. Registry Operator will maintain these reports for the term of the Agreement unless a shorter period is required by law or approved by ICANN, and will provide them to ICANN upon request." Rubens
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
From http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-ii... "Registry Operator will periodically conduct a technical analysis to assess whether domains in the TLD are being used to perpetrate security threats, such as pharming, phishing, malware, and botnets. Registry Operator will maintain statistical reports on the number of security threats identified and the actions taken as a result of the periodic security checks. Registry Operator will maintain these reports for the term of the Agreement unless a shorter period is required by law or approved by ICANN, and will provide them to ICANN upon request."
Great, Let's see what happens. If history is any teacher... - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
Great, Let's see what happens.
If history is any teacher...
There is not much history here to look at... .cc and .tk are ccTLDs, based out of sovereign states. They are delegated into the root by ICANN (more precisely by IANA, which is currently a contract also granted to ICANN) and that's it. What they do with 2LDs/3LDs are not under community scrutiny, unless the ccTLD operator is also operated on a multi-stakeholder basis. gTLDs operate under ICANN compliance regime and are required to abide by community policies. Will this be enough ? We don't know yet, but people have given some thought trying to find a way it is enough, and can require further mechanisms if the initial ones fail. Rubens
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
gTLDs operate under ICANN compliance regime and are required to abide by community policies. Will this be enough ? We don't know yet, but people have given some thought trying to find a way it is enough, and can require further mechanisms if the initial ones fail.
Of course, we all know that makes a huge difference. Cheers, - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
participants (3)
-
Paul Ferguson -
Rubens Kuhl -
Scott Weeks