[NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT: US Senate hearings on new gTLDs
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Dec 9 22:43:49 UTC 2011
I've excerpted a paragraph from Evan here, but I am really addressing
a wider issue that his specific comment.
I think that we need to be a bit carful with generalizations. For example:
- NCUC was not opposed to the entire concept. They were very much
opposed to some particular aspects, the morality issue being arguably
the largest one. Some within the NCUC advocated a FAR looser
structure than we now have, with minimal rules, processes and fees.
- IPC has generally supported the concept, of new gTLDs, nut wanted a
lot more (and stronger) rules regarding trademarks and (in their
mind) related issues.
So yes, many parts of the community were opposed to specific aspects
of the program. But it is important to note that in many cases,
issues that various parties were unhappy with were in direct
opposition to issues that some other segment of the community
strongly advocated. The only way to address all of the concerns
would be to not have any new gTLDs, and yet a very large part of the
community (including At-Large) felt that new gTLDs were crucially important.
At 09/12/2011 03:39 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>So the NCUC was opposed. ALAC was opposed (see below). The GAC was opposed.
>The IPC was opposed, and clearly not appeased by the IRT and STI efforts.
>And the CADNA/ANA opposition indicates that either ICANN's business
>community was opposed, or that it is unrepresentative of the broader
>business community (perhaps because it is an umbrella that equally includes
>both domainers and Internet content providers.)
More information about the NA-Discuss