[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

<<Over the longer term as I said there are better ways to architect
brand
services than putting up the price to make more band aids.>> 

Please elaborate. I also have a very strong feeling that .brands
"categoyr" should be dealt with differently in subsequent rounds, to the
benefit of all other intersted parties 

Best

---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez 
carlosraul at gutierrez.se 
+506 8837 7176 
Aparatado 1571-1000 
COSTA RICA

El 2018-07-13 09:56, Christian de Larrinaga escribió:

> The challenge with a tax model is that ICANN is not representative. No
> MS is not representative it is a process methodology. ICANN has been
> captured for some years by those who have a financial interest in acting
> as middle men controlling who gets a domain name rooted by the DNS root
> server operators.
> 
> There should be no branding in the DNS - none. It is not technically
> capable as it stands of representing brands. Branding could be supported
> and integrated with the DNS. But the domain name itself is not the
> mechanism to use.
> 
> We've had over two decades of noise around IPRs in the DNS domain names.
> None of the solutions to this are anything more than band aids to try to
> stop a bit of bleeding. The emergence of brand TLDs has created
> opportunities to cut an artery or two. But the idea you cure somebody by
> putting up the price of the surgery does not look like a good idea for
> the patient. It looks self serving for the surgeon.
> 
> Over the longer term as I said there are better ways to architect brand
> services than putting up the price to make more band aids.
> 
> The short term problem is ICANN has misstepped by pushing for brand TLDs
> and accumulated a huge amount of money in the process. If it finds out
> that it needs to spend some or all of that to fix its mess then that is
> not an excuse for passing the buck on to others.
> 
> What ICANN should not do is sell more tld's in order to subsidise fixing
> those already available. At the end of the day the brands who bought
> into and own these domains are responsible for the good conduct and
> service to their users. They bought into it and it is to them that their
> users should and can seek redress if those brands don't stand up to the
> contract they made. ICANN no doubt has some responsibility and possibly
> some potential liability but it is a private sector body and has to live
> and die as such.
> 
> best
> 
> Christian
> 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Christian,
> 
> On 12/07/2018 11:40, Christian de Larrinaga wrote: Worth pointing out this note is proposing a tax basis for DNS not a cost
> recovery mechanism. Who gets this tax revenue? Who gets to set it? ICANN
> does not have the credentials. 
> IMHO the "cost recovery basis" is a red herring for the simple reason
> that it is impossible to calculate what a TLD will really cost ICANN
> in the long run. Is it just the cost of processing the application, or
> is it the cost of fixing problems related to that TLD such as the need
> to have more ICANN compliance staff for more TLDs with a higher than
> normal amount of misuse of domains under that TLD?
> 
> The ICANN model is already a tax revenue model where ICANN taxes every
> domain sold and Registries, Registrars and their agenda collect that
> money on behalf of ICANN pretty much like VAT.
> 
> What about setting higher application fees for brand TLDs? I gather
> that the place to discuss this is the subsequent procedures PDP, if
> that has not already been discussed.
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Olivier

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20180714/27660154/attachment-0001.html>