[NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 16:08:08 UTC 2013
"*Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the
really worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues)
related to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and
generally worse), been closed.....*"
...........*The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited
at this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings
about any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to
offer feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch
formal objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This*
*feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether
justification exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC
[Speaking] as a member of the RG WG, couldn't say it better myself.
FWIW, I'm opposed to 'helping' with the documentation of the objection
itself. For that would be like a [volunteer] fireman setting his own fires
to certain objective!
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:16 AM, <na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> On 28 January 2013 22:33, RJ Glass <jipshida2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is a much larger issue at hand that should be addressed.
> I'm not sure I agree.
> Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the really
> worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues) related
> to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and generally
> worse), been closed. It's highly likely that many of the large issues you
> want to be addressed already have been, just not in any way that serves the
> public interest.
> ICANN has long ago decided that names -- including gTLDs -- are but
> commodities, driven by an industry that cares about greatest volume and
> speculative of names, public interest be damned. Every decision made about
> the new gTLD expansion has been based on that sad foundation, one which
> thrives on defensive activity and extracts value from the Internet rather
> than adding.
> The only real impediment to unfettered wide-open commoditisation has been
> imposed -- thanks to massive political clout -- by the legal trademark
> lobby. But not all names are protected; non-trademark names, such as those
> of non-profit bodies, common-law brands, aboriginal names and geographical
> regions without governing bodies are out of luck. In the stupidity that is
> ICANN names policy, protection of the word "olympic" (which has apparently
> been under merciless attack by a paint company) is more important than
> stopping fraudulent use of the name of Oxfarm or other non-favoured
> In this world, one in which ICANN long ago decided that generic terms at
> the second level were up for grabs to the highest bidder, the gTLD
> expansion is just a high-stakes extension of the existing philosophy. And
> all "objections" made by At-Large have to be done under very specific
> conditions, the result of a process primarily intended to filter our
> obscene strings such as ".nazi". The current objection process does not
> exist to reject applications merely because we don't think they'll serve
> the public, unless we can identify specific communities that will
> experience specific harm by misrepresentation.
> Dev and his team have done an excellent job setting up the process, and it
> is very detailed in order to stay within the bounds of what we're entitled
> to object to. Unless a string is obscene or an application misrepresents an
> identifiable community, we don't have grounds to object (as a formal ALAC
> That's it. The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited at
> this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings about
> any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to offer
> feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch formal
> objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This
> feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether justification
> exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC scrutiny. In
> this context, there are insufficient grounds *under the available
> criteria* for
> At-Large to support the objections raised regarding .amazon, .book, or
> .cba. I will spend some extra time determining whether the objections to
> .patagonia and .nyc merit consideration; until now I have been opposed, but
> based on comments in this thread I am prepared to re-evaluate. I won't
> necessarily change my mind but I do promise both comments another look.
> But Randy, please don't think that this cold approach means I disagree with
> your big-picture concerns. I would simply note here that the last
> officially-endorsed ALAC statement about the new gTLD program -- made at
> the Summit and never formally modified or rescinded -- unequivocally called
> the gTLD expansion program "unacceptable" as a matter of public interest.
> Current events will indicate to you how well that advice has been heeded.
> To this day, outside of those of our members who are themselves associated
> with TLD applications or domain resale, I have a hard time within At-Large
> finding much enthusiasm for the expansion at all. Indeed, given issues
> regarding compliance and protection against fraudulent use with existing
> domains, I still have serious concerns that the expansion program will be
> damaging to the public interest.
> As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD
> expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely
> led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific
> applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn
> anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them
> domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way
> to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD
> creation process?
> THAT IMO, is the discussion we need to (continue to) have.
> - Evan
More information about the NA-Discuss