DNAP Proposal

The following is the skeleton of DNAP proposal.  Its core principal is that individuals and groups may license domain names, but ultimately the names belong to New Yorkers.  Generally, we'll follow the processes used by other geo TLDs, and we'll default to ICANN policies.  This page, for now, focuses on how our model is different.  Eventually, we will need a full-fledged DNAP (the Draft RFP will clarify what that needs to look like).

Let's discuss DNAP issues on the Governance mailing list 

Namespace as Common Pool Resource

Think of any .city namespace as a common pool resource -- like the air, the water, the broadcast spectrum -- belonging to the surrounding community.  It's not the kind of the thing that can be owned, controlled, or sold for profit.  Instead, the community permits you to manage a portion of the space in exchange for your pledge that you will serve the interests of community.

Licensing the Namespace

One proposal for avoiding the commodification of the namespace (and ensuing speculation, hording, and squatting) is to license the names for a flat annual fee.  Names would not be transferable between nameholders.  Thus, a domain name would never cost more than (say) $10/year.

Licenses should be cheap, especially since we're making a lot of demands.  That said, they are the primary source of funds for Connecting NYC, an organization which should strive for economic independence.  We'll need to do some research on how much it will cost to run the org vs. how much we're likely to bring in each year.

Licenses can be available for indefinite renewal, but will be open to audits that will be initiated by member petitions.

That said, nameholders must feel comfortable that they will not have the rug pulled out from under them.  We must establish a rigorous and transparent process for revoking licenses.  We will always favor arbitration and graduated sanctions over outright revocation.

Guiding Principles

Those who license .nyc names are required to operate according to the principles codified by Connecting nyc, as determined by its members.

Enforcement of Principles

We plan to use cooperation technologies to make possible true involvement by our members in the allocation process.  The specifics of this will be determined by the specifics of the DNAP.  In general, we expect to use member votes to arbitrate between multiple claimaints to the same domain name ("collisions"), and we expect our members to initiate petitions against nameholders who are not meeting the guiding principles.

Allocation Process

Three phases:

• Set Aside Phase
• Proposal Phase
• Petition Phases

Set Aside Phase

"Set asides" are those names that will be controlled directly by the Board, and also those names that ICANN requires us to set aside.  As we flesh out the structure of the namespace, we may find it necessary to control certain naming structures.  For example, we may wish to establish a convention for community boards, and award names to community boards without going through the rest of the allocation process.

The set aside phase should occur before we submit our application to ICANN.  Still, we should do our best to involve the community, as well as other global cities, in this process.

Internationalization issues should be sorted out in this phase as well.

Proposal Phase

This is like the "landrush" phase for other TLDs, but with greater member involvement.  In this phase, prospective nameholders are invited to submit proposals for a particular name.  Members will then be invited to comment on, or if the prospective nameholders allow, collaborate on these proposals.  Before the close of the proposal phase, all names which have competing proposals will be subject to a community vote.  This transparent and public proposal process will give the advantage to prospective nameholders who can demonstrate a commitment to public service.

At the end of this phase, all nameholders that have been voted in or validated will be open for business. 

>>Possible policy - Validation of uncontested claims:
Many names will be claimed and uncontested.  We want to prevent certain nameholders from trying to horde names, thereby creating obstacles for future nameholders who would actually use the name for the public good.  Even uncontested claims will be required to submit a minimal proposal, which must be validated by some minimal number of voters.

>>Trademark issues

Trademark holders will need to make all claims during the initial proposal phase.  Trademark holders will probably need to have some default advantage over other claimants (because ICANN and the law will likely demand this).  But, other prospective nameholders will have the possibility of submitting a counter-proposal coupled with a formal challenge to the trademark claim.

Connecting NYC will want to stay neutral in these disputes if possible.  At the same time, we will want to create a framework for such challenges.  Also, there may be some basis in our guiding principles for challenging some trademark claims.  We'll need an official stance on this question.

Petition Phase

This phase is just the normal operations phase.  I call it the Petition Phase in order to emphasize that all nameholders can have their right to their license called into question at any time.

The specifics of this procedure need to be determined in detail, but it might look something like:

1. Members can make a claim that a particular nameholder is not meeting the guiding principles.  They will need x number of votes to get their petition before the board.

2. The Board will then make a ruling on whether the petition makes valid claims

3. The next phase might be a referendum or arbitration

    a. referendum: a simple vote on whether or not to revoke the license

    b. arbitration: members, or a member advocacy group, work with the nameholder to resolve grievances

4. Appeals: all decisions of the board and the voters will likely be subject to appeal

Other points:

There should probably be a limit to how many petitions a nameholder can be subject to in a given period.  We have to protect the nameholders as well, and not tie them up with endless litigation.

 

Additional Background Info