[At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 01:03:07 UTC 2012


Dear Roberto,

Can you provide some examples of the successful cases of public-private
partnerships that you referred to?

Thank you.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Roberto Gaetano <
roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am with Evan on this.
> My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be
> allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that,
> while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public
> interest,
> I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public
> interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest.
> Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition
> between
> the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a
> public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this
> respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this
> approach.
> Cheers,
> R.
>
>
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan
> Leibovitch
> Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36
> A: At-Large Worldwide
> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments
> on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
>
> 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
> 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
>



More information about the At-Large mailing list