<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Hi, Evan,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Thank you very much for your prompt reply and
comments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>First of all, I am glad that ICANN has kept seperate
accounting for the new gTLD program, which is clearly a prudent way to handle
it. However, if we look at all the income brought in by the program, it
will also include the auction revenue, same as the USD $175K a piece for
applicants. The only difference is, when there is high demand for a
certain TLD, the price went higher due to the law of supply and demand.
Thus, not considering this auction revenue was either a mistake at the
first place, or not seeing the very nature of it, or both.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Secondly, regarding domain parking,
CCT-RT identified seven cases/reasons as the following (CCT-RT's
Draft Report, page 33, see attached):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>• The domain name does not resolve.<BR>• The domain
name resolves, but attempts to connect via HTTP return an error message.<BR>•
HTTP connections are successful, but the result is a page that displays
advertisements, offers the domain for sale or both. In a small number of cases,
these pages may also be used as a vector to distribute malware.<BR>• The page
that is returned is empty or otherwise indicates that the registrant is not
providing any content.<BR>• The page that is returned is a template provided by
the registry with no customization offered by the registrant.<BR>• The domain
was registered by an affiliate of the registry operator and uses a standard
template with no unique content.<BR>• The domain redirects to another domain in
a different TLD.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Furthermore, this Draft Report also states that
"nTLDStats reports that, by one measure, about 63% of the domains in new gTLDs
are currently parked" (same page as above). By any measure, most of
these do not serve ICANN's original purpose of the new gTLD program.
(The last case could be either a trademark holder's defensive registration, or
merely to broaden its reach into new gTLDs.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Thus, this report's Recommendation #5 (with High
priority) is to "Collect Parking Data". That is, "ICANN should regularly
track the proportion of TLDs that are parked with sufficient granularity to
identify trends on a regional and global basis" (page 50, same report).
Thus, CCT-RT is recommending ICANN itself being the arbiter for "real
usage".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Thirdly, I fully agree with you that certain sections
of ICANN, primarily from the registry/registrar side, may resist
discouraging domain parking out of their own financial interests. However,
ICANN, according to its mandate as defined by the Bylaws, is to protect the
"public interest". As I understand it, this means foremost to protect the
end-users' interest. Otherwise, ICANN will become a DNS industry
association and advocator, no longer to be trusted by the
public. Or even worse, to become a for-profit organization if ICANN
first considers its own financial interests.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Especially for us at At-Large, we are supposed to
specifically represent the end-users' interests. After being with ALAC for
about a year and half, especially from the experience at CCT-RT, my
understanding is, the essence of ICANN's multi-stakeholder structure is to
bring all parties representing different interests together and to negotiate in
order to reach an agreement that can be acceptible by all. Thus, as
end-user/consumers' interest often do not coincide with the industry's interest,
our responsibility is to stand out and speak out. My personal view is,
this case related to domain parking and speculation is exactly one of such
cases that calls upon us for duty.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Regarding ICANN's staff, both at ALAC and CCT-RT, my
experience is that they all provide excellent service and assistance, while
their personal opinions are fairly neutral when there happens to be
disagreements. As to the "fairly paranoid legal staff" of ICANN, I do not
have much experience so far. But I expect them to face the truth,
including recognizing "significant negative impacts" of the new gTLD program, as
well as recognition of harm and liability to trademark holders on defensive
registrations.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Having said all the above, I also agree with you that,
using some of the auction revenue to provide refunds may encounter resistance
from some parts within ICANN. However, I believe about all suggestions for
allocating this fund will have a similar situation. So be it. This
is why ICANN has us at At-Large and ALAC. Although there is no guarantee
that we will win every fight in protecting end-users/consumers' interest, at
least we have stood out and spoken out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Thank you again.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Kaili</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=evan@telly.org href="mailto:evan@telly.org">Evan Leibovitch</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>To:</B> <A title=kankaili@gmail.com
href="mailto:kankaili@gmail.com">Kan Kaili</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ICANN At-Large list</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 15, 2017 12:08 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [At-Large] Auction Proceeds -
where we are and what you can help</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: #0b5394"
class=gmail_default><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)">On 14 May 2017 at
07:48, Kan Kaili </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)" dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:kankaili@gmail.com"
target=_blank>kankaili@gmail.com</A>></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(34,34,34)">
wrote:</SPAN><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体">First of all, I do not want to exclude
other ways of spending the auction revenue, but only to use part of the
funds for refund to applicants.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>We're mixing things in a way that isn't helpful.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>ICANN accounting has separated the gTLD program out, so
there is already an understanding of what the fees in excess of expenses are.
It is reasonable to advocate for a refund from that that amount.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>This email thread regards the disboursement of funds from
auction proceeds, which is a completely separate source of funds and not at
all related to the delivery of the gTLD expansion program. By its very nature
it is above and beyond the official monies collected for administration of the
expansion.</DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体">However, for those applicants who applied
for new gTLDs for REAL usages, ICANN clearly over-charged them.
This is not ICANN's fault, but ICANN's original calculation of costs was too
high without considering the auction revenue which happened beyond
expectation. Thus, we OWE them a refund.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>OK. Who is the arbiter of "real" usages?</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体">Therefore, as ICANN's original purpose of
the new gTLD program was to facilitate usage of new domain names,
refunding those who paid the hefty $175K for real usage of new
gTLDs would only be natural. In addition, if ICANN's refund is
proportional to the real usage of domain names but excluds those being
parked, it could motivate registries/registrars to discourage domain parking
in the future.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>An interesting notion. But the industry, which comprises
more than half of ICANN's policy-making body and financially benefits from
speculation, would aggressively resist any such attempt. Also keep in mind
that since ICANN's source of income is domain sales, a reduction in
speculative domains financially damages ICANN itself. So ICANN as an
institution will also oppose any move to reduce domain
speculation.</DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体">Furthermore, it is already recognized
that the new gTLD program also has its
down-sides. </SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>It is recognized by some stakeholders. As I suggested
above, the domain industry and ICANN itself will vigorously resist any
acknowledgement that there is significant negative impact to gTLD expansion.
Just look at the pushback you receive in the CCT-RT from ICANN
staff.</DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV bgcolor="#ffffff">
<DIV><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 宋体">One of those is trademark holders are
often forced to spend money to "defensively register" domain names in new
gTLDs, with some of the costs substantial. Thus, using some of the
auction revenue to subsidize those who suffered from this new gTLD program
would also be reasonable.</SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>This is an interesting concept, but in practice
absolutely impossible to implement. Such a subsidy might be interpreted as not
only recognition of harm but also a recognition of liability. As such,
ICANN's fairly paranoid legal staff would never let this idea get any
traction.</DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>Cheers,</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif; COLOR: rgb(11,83,148)"
class=gmail_default>-
Evan</DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>