[At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l

Fri Aug 10 00:56:02 UTC 2012

I am with Evan on this.
My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be
allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that,
while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest,
I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public
interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest.
Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between
the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a
public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this
respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this
approach.
Cheers,
R.

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
Leibovitch
Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36
A: At-Large Worldwide
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments
on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l

Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to
engagement on it as required.

On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new 
> gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.

Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see
that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great
fan of Amazon.

Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the
explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the
"private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If
we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment
with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold
the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive
registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not
an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative
approaches to TLD use must be allowed.

As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many,
many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access
to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity
-- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion
takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards.

It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs
such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody
has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the
application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have
been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a
problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic
words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that
the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants
have responded to them in good faith.

And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not
wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the
names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security,
sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of
suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond
its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX.

- Evan

> I
> see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public 
> interest is served by allowing them.
>
> Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established 
> and proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very 
> clearly exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair 
> monopoly (like, maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be 
> so necessary! But that is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds 
> using generic names like .book must be an absolute NO...... I dont 
> know how any such proposal survived so many committee, reviews etc 
> that may have gone into the decision about new gtlds...
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> >
> > I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the 
> > work
> table <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rollout+Issues>.
>  Please let me know if there is more action required at this time.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56
_______________________________________________
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