[lac-discuss-en] Sobre dominio "o.com"

Fri May 11 13:36:45 UTC 2018

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
[[--This message had format issues and was not translated properly--]]

Subject:Re:  Sobre dominio "o.com"
Desde:"Maritza Y. Aguero Minano" <myaguero at msn.com>

Dear,

Thank you all for the contributions.

Given the topic under discussion and that merits further analysis and comments, please ask the Staff to open a wiki so that, in this way, we can place the opinions and / or comments.

With the confirmation of this request, we could proceed with the steps indicated by Carlos and other contributions of the community on this subject.

Regards,

Maritza

On May 11 2018, at (s) 07:13, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se> wrote:

Thanks Alberto for bringing the subject to the table.
Thanks Alejandro for giving us the right framework for a good discussion.

I suggest that we make this list a discussion in Spanish initially, let's set a deadline with enough time for the secretary to summarize our position and be translated into English as soon as possible so that our LACRALO colleagues in other languages can have it on time. So I ask the LACRALO secretary to establish this calendar as soon as possible.I also want to request confirmation that this mailing list and the opinions that are expressed in it are in the record of this important topic (Record) and that if a translation is made I have the opportunity to edit it before publishing it. some translations cause me a lot of concern. Under these conditions, and given that Alejandro has given the framework for the discussion, I want to make my comments, limiting myself to two additional aspects to those that Alejandro has given me that seem crucial to me:

1. About the allocation process:

I want to know where the funds for this auction are going to end up.If they finish in the bottom of the auctions of the last round, I have nothing against. Otherwise you have to ask about that topic as soon as possible and look for a consensus opinion within ALAC!

2. On the background of the new single-letter TLD (s):
Background: As I participated in the development of policy for new rounds of TLDs (Subsequent Rounds PDP), I recognize that the segmentation opportunity offered by new TLDs is of benefit to all.One of the most relevant results of the CCT Review for me is that the expansion, rather than an increase in the number of registrations, has opened the doors to the substitution of generic registrations for more specific TLDs. Many new registrations in new TLDs have been made despite the fact that it was available in .com. The main risk of the new TLDs on the other hand, has been the strong tendency to restrict their use based on elements that have not been discussed at the community level, are not based on explicit policies developed within the GNSO and added in the contracts of the registers bilaterally.What's more, we do not know yet how the compliance with them will be monitored. As an example I only want to mention the exclusivity restrictions that have been granted to the owners of brand
 s that are now TLDs, as well as the competence to add public interest commitments (PICs) in many others, to achieve a better evaluation and their delegation.
Therefore: it is my personal position as a member and candidate for a position of choice in this community, that any delegation of new TLDs must be subject to full transparency in the conditions under which they will be able to register domains under that TLD .In recent days a new term has emerged: the intention to use or "intended use". Regardless of whether this is the term that will include in the future all the restrictions or all the public interest commitments of each TLD, it is of vital importance for me to note that my preference is that each and every new TLD have the minimum possible restrictions and are open to any domain registration. This position is based on my deep conviction that the Internet must remain a fully open platform. In this way we must pay special attention to any type of restriction also in the TLDs.
Two major groups of restrictions have already been distilled: on the one hand, the brands, with a degree of total exclusivity, as well as TLDs that designate highly regulated sectors. The economic logic of these restrictions is overwhelming. but that is not the reason why we must stop demanding absolute transparency in its application, since in the end they only help reinforce dominant market positions. On the other hand the exclusive rights geographical designations, such as two-letter codes and the names of large cities.Not only for the regional exclusivity of the same, but also for the use other than the geographic that has been given to some combinations of two letters, we must take special care that these TLDs are not used to abuse market positions (prices!)
This way my opinion on o.com is that if the winner of the auction is going to have a contract with ICANN that guarantees that it is a TLD totally open and free of restrictions, I agree. Otherwise, these contractual restrictions must first pass through the scrutiny of the WHOLE community.I reiterate that this position of a global metric of "openness" also reflects my general position within the Subsequent Procedures PDP. If there are going to be restrictions, these must be very clearly founded. And to date I only know two areas that have that foundation (regardless of whether I agree with it), which are the exclusive use of trademarks based on current international law and the process of designation and use of geographical names for many reasons beyond international law that includes the sovereignty of peoples, their cultures and traditions, the human right to free expression, etc.

---
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
On 2018-05-10 20:38, Alberto Soto wrote:

Dear, ICANN has just requested an opinion on a domain: "... to release for registration a domain name with a single-character label, OR .COM, in the generic top-level domain .COM (gTLD)".

I would like to have the opinion of LACRALO members regarding this issue in their relationship with end users. At some point as ALAC Member, I will have to comment on this.I hope to count on your collaboration so that it is not a personal opinion at its opportune moment.

The link of the requirement:

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-05-10-en

Best regards

Alberto Soto

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org

_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org http://www.lacralo.org

[[--Original text (es)
Translated by transbot 2.18-2.04
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/33a347d680.html
--]]