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

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 16:30:32 UTC 2018

Fyi: Filter out LACRALO since am not a member
Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 08:57 Christian de Larrinaga, <cdel at firsthand.net>

> 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.

SO: +1

> 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.

SO: +1~ I guess it's one of the reason why a rushed next round could
emphasis the rigmarole.

> 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.

SO: Once again, I agree.


> 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/20180713/6733627c/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list