[lac-discuss-es] closed generic gTLD

Jue Feb 28 15:04:22 UTC 2013

Buenos días!

Les reenvio este correo de la lista de ALAC, que tiene información
importante. Abajo encontrarán información sobre:

1.Closed Generic" gTLD En la úlitma llamada de ALAC, Evan presento una
declaración sobre este tema, presentando  2 posibilidades: a favor y en
contra. Este es el link al statement:
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847>

Se que Evan esta en esta lista, y le pediría por favor que explique a la
región sobre este tema, para que podamos votar con conocimiento cuando
llegue el momento.

2. Invitación a una llamada organizada por  RySG y  NTAG el lunes 4 de
Marzo, 1500 UTC.  Se discutirá sobre las ultimas modificaciones
introducidas al manual del aplicante del new gTLD. (<
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: English
Access: Anyone who has the URL for the meeting may enter the room

Saludos,
Natalia

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <alac-request en atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Date: 2013/2/28
Subject: ALAC Digest, Vol 55, Issue 17
To: alac en atlarge-lists.icann.org

Send ALAC mailing list submissions to
        alac en 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 en atlarge-lists.icann.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        alac-owner en 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] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation
      Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed
      Registry  Agreement Changes (Alan Greenberg)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:50:56 -0500
From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels en gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en mcgill.ca>
Cc: ALAC Working List <alac en atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAOZQb9QApaqWu8ALe-9rgYzSgPrTJJnhs8Ps2dHG77eg40KYDg en mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted.  So let's look at the other
claim: the public interest is subverted.  The statement itself does a good
enough job to undermine that claim and shows up the internal inconsistency
of the logic utilised.

I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration 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
closed generics provide public benefit".

Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "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."

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, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en 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 en 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)
>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:58:56 -0500
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg en mcgill.ca>
Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community
        Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's
        Proposed Registry  Agreement Changes
To: ALAC Working List <alac en atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large
        Worldwide       <at-large en atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Message-ID:
        <d3fc3fb3-6a43-4e46-9a61-8572413a7557 en EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman en neustar.us>
>To: "council en gnso.icann.org" <council en gnso.icann.org>
>Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:39:02 -0500
>Subject: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation
>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
>
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-changes-05feb13-en.pdf
).
>
>
>The RySG believes that the latest proposed version of the Final
>Agreement contains so many serious and fundamental 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
>via sound business models that support the needs of all stakeholders
>in ways that have been developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder
process.
>
>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)
>
>ICANN has posted the proposed changes for public comment which ends
>on February 26, 2013, with a reply period that closes on March 20,
>2013.  In order to facilitate the receipt of public input in this
>short amount of time, the RySG will host this open community-wide
>consultation to discuss the proposed agreement 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 en neustar.biz>jeff.neuman en neustar.biz  / www.neustar.biz
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RySG Invitation to Community.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 328579 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20130228/2948cf42/RySGInvitationtoCommunity.pdf

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC en atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

End of ALAC Digest, Vol 55, Issue 17
************************************

-- 
natalia.enciso en gmail.com