[At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments by IT for Change, India

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Known:
The ALAC can give advice to the ICANN Board on anything related to ICANN.
The ANgWG can recommend to ALAC anything that is within our charter.
Roll out issues for the new gTLD program are in our charter.

Probable:
Since the charter includes roll out issues and there seems to be agreement that this issue is in scope as a roll out issue, we can make a recommendation on it to ALAC. 

Unknowns:
What recommendation the group might make, if any.
Whether the ALAC accepts our recommendation.
What the Board does with any advice the ALAC might give based on our recommendation, if any.


Dev's group has a tighter mandate since they are restricted to issues that are either:
- Limited Public Interest, the euphemism used for Morality and Public Order
- Harmful to a specific community

Hope that answers.

parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>Avri
>
>Thanks for the information.
>
>Can you specifically tell me if your WG can or cannot give advice to 
>ICANN (through ALAC of otherwise) against giving private tld
>exceptions, 
>especially when generic words are being applied for as TLDs? I 
>understand, as you say, that whether it actually gives any such rec is 
>subject to the outcomes of the discussion, but you would know whether
>if 
>it is at all within the mandate of your WG to do so. For instance,
>Dev's 
>WG on gTLD reviews did not decide on the merit of ITfC's inputs. It did
>
>not find it to be something that the Group can even consider any action
>
>about. Can you group consider any such action in form of recs etc. This
>
>is my question.
>
>Thanks, parminder
>
>
>
>On Tuesday 25 September 2012 04:21 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In this case the At-Large New gTLD WG, has as one of its chartered 
>> work items, the task of reviewing issues with the roll out of new 
>> gTLDs. The issues are brought to the group, discussed and if there is
>
>> support in the group for taking some form of action, a recommendation
>
>> its made to the ALAC. Alac then decides whether
>>
>> The issue of private generic TLDs its already on the list of issues
>to 
>> be discussed:
>>
>https://community.icann.org/m/view-page.action?spaceKey=atlarge&title=Rollout+Issues
>>
>> The discussion is just starting and I cannot predict at this point 
>> what might come of it.
>>
>>
>>
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear Dev
>>
>>     IT for Change thanks the gTLD Review Group for giving
>consideration to
>>     its inputs.
>>
>>     I did not quite understand that is the remit of this other group
>headed
>>     by Avri.... What kind of output/ recs can it produce? Is
>commenting on
>>     the overall policy within its remit? Thanks for providing these
>>     clarifications. parminder
>>
>>     On Tuesday 25 September 2012 09:33 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh
>wrote:
>>
>>         Dear All, The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ;
>>         https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) received a comment from
>>         IT for Change, India on September 11 2012. IT for Change,
>>         India's comment was not directed at a specific application or
>>         ap! plicant but was posted to the At-Large new gTLD
>>         Applications Dashboard at
>>        
>https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/multiple-strings-by-IT-for-change_OG
>>         for comment. The comment by IT for Change, India is that
>>         allowing generic words as private TLDs (i.e with single
>>         registrant, with no requirement to make second level domain
>>         names available to the open market) is against the public
>>         interest. Because such a concept is outside the scope of any
>>         particular applicant or application, the gTLD RG will not be
>>         submitting a comment for the ALAC for possible submission to
>>         ICANN's new gTLD comment forum before the close of the
>>         Application Comment Period on September 26 2012. However,
>>         given the concept raised regarding generic words becoming
>>         private TLDs has policy implications that impacts individual
>>         Internet! end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues
>>         raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group
>(new
>>         gTLD WG ; https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion
>>         and possible policy recommendations. We note that the issues
>>         referred to the new gTLD WG from past comments received by
>the
>>         gTLD RG
>>         (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG)
>have
>>         been added to the new gTLD WG's agenda. Kind Regards, Dev
>>         Anand Teelucksingh Chair, gTLD Review Group
>>        
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>         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
>>
>>
>> Avri Doria 

Avri Doria