[lac-discuss-en] closed generic gTLD
natalia.enciso at gmail.com
natalia.enciso at gmail.com
Thu Feb 28 15:06:06 UTC 2013
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: closed generic gTLD
From: natalia.enciso at gmail.com
Buenos das!
Les forwarding this mail list ALAC, which has information
important. Down encontrarn information about:
Generic 1.Closed "gTLD In Litma call ALAC, Evan filed a
Declaration on this topic, presenting two possibilities: for and
against. This is the link to the statement:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847
< https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847>
Evan is on this list, and ask you please explain to the
region on this issue, so we can vote with knowledge when
the time comes.
2. Invitacina a call organized by RySG and NTAG on Monday 4
March, 1500 UTC. The latest amendments were discutirsobre
introduced to the new manual gTLD applicant.(<
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-changes-05feb13-en.pdf
>
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-changes-05feb13-en.pdf
).
The RySG's full public comments are available here:
> (<
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html>
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html)
* Adobe Connect Room *
Meeting Information
Name: RySG
Summary: RySG
URL:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/rysg/
Language: Inglés
Access: Anyone who has the URL for the meeting may enter the room
Regards,
Natalia
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Date: 2013/2/28
Subject: ALAC Digest, Vol 55, Issue 17
To: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Send ALAC mailing list submissions to
alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
alac-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ALAC digest ..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Closed generic statement (Carlton Samuels)
2. Fwd: [council] Invitation to Community Consultation RySG
Teleconference on Monday, March 4 - Discuss ICANN's Proposed
Registry Agreement Changes (Alan Greenberg)
-------------------------------------------------- --------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 February 2013 7:50:56 -0500
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] generic statement Closed
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Cc: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
<CAOZQb9QApaqWu8ALe-9rgYzSgPrTJJnhs8Ps2dHG77eg40KYDg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text / plain; charset = ISO-8859-1
The key can not be successfully refuted. So let's look at the other
claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement itself does a good
That job enough to undermine the claim and shows up internal inconsistency
of the logic utilised.
I am asserting the evidence supports this declaration That That closed
generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, at best. All
we can say for sure is That It Tends to subvert the existing business
model. And the evidence is right there in the statement!
The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe That
Provide generics closed public benefit ".
Then That is Undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee Innovative Business
That might allow models to closed TLD to be in the public interest. An
example might be a registry That makes 2nd level names available at no cost
to anyone, but legal Retains Control over them. This is similar to the
model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. "
This is the Problem with the statement ...... "We can forseee". "Forsee"! It
is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence now available, slim
As That Is that mortally wounds the declaration of the fist paragraph.
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
* Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround *
=============================
On Thu, February 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> Wrote:
> At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed
> generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had
> been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that
> the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say
> with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some
> discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and
> moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of
> both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create
> a new version.
>
> I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it,
> and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan
> suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could
> be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support.
>
> What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to
> Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier
> versions.
>
> The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be
> completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a
> vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you
> see here, please speak up quickly.
>
> This new statement is also posted on the wiki -
> https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg.
>
> Alan
>
> =================================
>
> On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide
> public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings
> representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would
> lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large
> believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the
> public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being
> beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply
> being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains.
>
> However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC
> found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions
> would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might
> allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be
> a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone,
> but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model
> used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be
> made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution
> that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for
> other forms of sub-domain allocation.
>
> Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in
> some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous
> computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange"
> might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a
> California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to
> orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American
> countries) might well be considered unacceptable.
>
> Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case
> review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be
> allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not
> change that model once the TLD is delegated.
>
> In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of
> generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be
> supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be
> both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that
> ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not
> be excluded.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 February 2013 8:58:56 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community
Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 - Discuss ICANN's
Changes Proposed Registry Agreement
To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> , At-Large
Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
<d3fc3fb3-6a43-4e46-9a61-8572413a7557 at EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Content-Type: text / plain; charset = "us-ascii"
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date: Thu, 28 February 2013 1:39:02 -0500
> Subject: [council] Invitation to Community Consultation RySG
> Teleconference on Monday,
> March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes
>
>Dear Councilors,
>
>I wanted to personally invite each of you as well as members from
>your SGs and Constituencies to a call being hosted by the RySG and
>the NTAG on Monday, March 4th. We look forward to this open
>consultation with the community.
>
>
>**** RySG/NTAG Community-Wide Consultation on the New gTLD Agreement
>Modifications*****
>
>The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and its New gTLD Applicant
>Group (NTAG) invite your participation in a community-wide
>consultation teleconference on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 UTC.
>
>On 5 February 2013, nearly nine months after new gTLD applicants
>spent hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipation of the new
>introduction of new gTLDs, ICANN proposed a series of last-minute
>material changes to the registry agreement contained in the Final
>New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Included within these changes are a
>brand new process for making additional Public Interest Commitments
>(PICs), a unilateral right for ICANN to amend the registry
>agreement, the requirement to use only registrars that have executed
>the yet-to-be-completed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and a
>host of other changes summarized in a 21-page summary of changes
>document.
>(<
>
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-changes-05feb13-en.pdf
).
>
>
> The RySG Believes That the latest version of the Final Proposed
> Agreement contains so many serious and critical flaws That It
> Should be Withdrawn in its entirety and the Previously Agreed-to
> Version in the Applicant Guidebook Should be used. We Oppose Certain
> Proposed amendments, and believe That Other Provisions Need Further
> Thought and refinement. We are Equally Concerned about the timeline
> ICANN has imposed on the community's consideration of These
> Proposals, and the mechanism by Which ICANN Proposes to adopt and
> Implement the changes.
>
> The issues at stake in the short and long term deserve Sufficient
> Time and consideration to Ensure That New gTLDs are Offered in a
> Secure and stable Manner and are successful in Fostering Innovation
> That via sound business models support the needs of all stakeholders
> In Ways That Have Been Developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder
process.
>
> The public RySG's full comments are available here:
> (<
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html>
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html)
>
> ICANN has posted the Proposed Changes for Which public comment ends
> On February 26, 2013, with a reply period closes on March 20 That,
> 2013. In order to Facilitate the receipt of public input In This
> Short amount of time, the RySG will host this community-wide open
> Consultation to discuss the agreement Proposed modifications. The
> Meeting will be held on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 [UTC]. We
> Cordially invite applicants, members of the community, the ICANN
> Board and the ICANN staff to Attend this consultation.
>
> Please open the attachment to find the Adobe Connect link and
> Teleconference details.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc./ Vice President, Business Affairs
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
> Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax:
> +1.703.738.7965 /
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> jeff.neuman @ neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz
-------------- Next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed ...
Name: Invitation to Community.pdf RySG
Type: application / pdf
Size: 328579 bytes
Desc: not available
Url:
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ff09bc14dd.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list