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

Fri Aug 10 01:27:42 UTC 2012

The first that comes to my mind is the ETSI PPP (Public Private Partnership)
model that ETSI developed in the early 90's, where the private telecom
industry was actively participating with the (then monopolist) telcos and
member states to the development of standards. The governance model included
also a user group - probably insufficient by today's standards, but ahead of
its time 20 years ago.
This was substantially different from the ITU model at the same time.
The success is given by the fact that, as the standards had a wide consensus
at development time, they were easily and widely adopted without need for
legal enforcement. Example: the GSM standard for european mobile phones.

Cheers,
R.

PS: I am not (yet) in the governance list, so this message will not reach
that audience

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Rinalia Abdul
Rahim
Inviato: venerdì 10 agosto 2012 03:03
A: At-Large Worldwide
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the
comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU
s.a.r.l

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
>
_______________________________________________
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