[At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Aug 9 16:45:57 UTC 2012
Although with this defense of so-called private TLDs it seems like a
channeling of Groucho Marx take on private clubs - "I don't care to belong
to a club that accepts people like me as members." - I share your
perspective, although from a slightly different direction.
I shall forever oppose any form of content judgment and attempts at
censorship, a priori or otherwise. But I think it would be an egregious
case of mission creep if ICANN begins to plumb business models as part of
The argument that private TLDs restrict consumer choice is not and cannot
be sustained on fact.
Carlton A Samuels
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to
> engagement on it as required.
> On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> > Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new
> > gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
> Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see
> that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no
> great fan of Amazon.
> Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about
> the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway,
> the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable)
> consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few
> that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution,
> especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers
> and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of
> dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly
> innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed.
> As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many,
> many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access
> to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity
> -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion
> takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards.
> It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs
> such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody
> has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the
> application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have
> been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a
> problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic
> words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that
> the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants
> have responded to them in good faith.
> And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not
> wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the
> names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security,
> sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of
> suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond
> its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX.
> - Evan
> > I
> > see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public
> > interest is served by allowing them.
> > Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established
> > and proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very
> > clearly exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair monopoly
> > (like, maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be so
> > necessary! But that is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds using
> > generic names like .book must be an absolute NO...... I dont know how
> > any such proposal survived so many committee, reviews etc that may have
> > gone into the decision about new gtlds...
> > parminder
> > >
> > > I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the work
> > table <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rollout+Issues>.
> > Please let me know if there is more action required at this time.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > At-Large mailing list
> > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >
> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > At-Large mailing list
> > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> Evan Leibovitch
> Toronto Canada
> Em: evan at telly dot org
> Sk: evanleibovitch
> Tw: el56
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large