[ALAC] Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been...

[Alan Greenberg]

Holly, did you mean "RAA" or "RA".

This new version of the Registry Agreement 
includes a VERY large number of changes, some no 
doubt houskeeping, and some quite substantive. No 
time now for a careful review.

Regarding the language that Phil calls out, I see 
it more as a house-keeping change and removing 
the need for an ICANN judgement call, although it 
may force some closed TLDs to use registrars who 
might have squeaked through with the old words.

The use of this part of the RA to avoid using 
registrars is, in my opinion, a red herring. It 
makes life easier and cheaper for an organization 
that plans to use all sub-domains itself, but it 
is not a requirement. Amazon could still own all 
sub-domains on its .book (as an example), and 
still pay some registrar a nominal amount per 
domain, and it would have to set up a cumbersome 
communications protocol to enact this. But it would not stop the closed usage.

Alan



At 30/04/2013 07:03 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>Hi Everyone
>
>I don't know how many of you get Phil's stuff, 
>but maybe he is right and the issue of 'closed generic' TLDs is addressed?
>
>Would someone closer to this issue check to see 
>if he is right.  (and please put something on 
>the wiki - either to say we are happy that the 
>latest RAA addresses the issue - or not)
>
>Thanks
>
>Holly
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz at facebookmail.com>
> > Date: 1 May 2013 8:20:27 AM AEST
> > To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + 
> A)" <283484908411146 at groups.facebook.com>
> > Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD 
> A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been...
> > Reply-To: Reply to comment 
> <g+40rp409t000zg543zelp004ehdt4hb53000zg4db9t612c346 at groups.facebook.com>
> >
> > Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)
> >
> > Philip Corwin 1 May 08:20
> > The purported "closed generic' loophole has 
> been eliminated in this new RA draft.
> >
> > I just took a look at the redline version of 
> Specification 9 in the revised gTLD RA -- the Code of Conduct.
> >
> > ICANN has struck the words “that are 
> reasonably necessary for the management, 
> operations and purpose of the TLD;” from 
> Section 1b, replacing it with language 
> permitting a registry operator to have up to 
> 100 domains for its own exclusive use. It was 
> the “purpose” reference that was the basis for 
> applicant claims that they could be the sole 
> registrant in their own gTLD without seeking a 
> Section 6 exemption. So the purported loophole 
> is now gone, and all "closed generic” 
> applicants must now seek a section 6 “public interest” exemption.
> >
> > Looks like ICANN is already taking GAC advice...
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm
> > Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement | ICANN
> > www.icann.org
> > Comment / Reply Periods (*)Comment Open Date: 
> 29 April 2013Comment Close Date: 20 May 2013 - 23:59 U...
> >
> > View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · 
> Reply to this email to add a comment.
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)