[At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments by IT for Change, India
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Sep 27 15:57:37 UTC 2012
Thanks for your response, Avri.
Yes, it makes it relatively clearer.
You say that it is within the scope of the WG to give advice on the
private gTLD issue. You have pointed to me to the page where the listed
issues for the WG can be seen. Here I see that on the issue of private
gTLDs the token holder (not exactly sure what it means though) is Evan
However, in an email on 25th Sept, on the newspaper article that I did
on private gtlds, Evan had the following to say....
" This would have been an extremely useful intervention ... three years ago. In its current form it's merely an act of hindsight, and as such its value is severely diminished."
In response to my input to the Dev's WG, which he was kind enough to
post on the ICANN website, Evan posted a response which claims that
"While I share the concerns and have expressed many myself, the
ability to affect gTLD expansion policy in this direction is also
If the token holder of the issue of private tlds so firmly believes that
this issue is not something that anything can be done about at present,
I wonder what is the discussion about. Also your assurance that the WG
can indeed yet advice ICANN on this issue seems contrary to Evan's
claim. So, well, my confusion has not entirely cleared.
On Tuesday 25 September 2012 06:28 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> The ALAC can give advice to the ICANN Board on anything related to ICANN.
> The ANgWG can recommend to ALAC anything that is within our charter.
> Roll out issues for the new gTLD program are in our charter.
> Since the charter includes roll out issues and there seems to be
> agreement that this issue is in scope as a roll out issue, we can make
> a recommendation on it to ALAC.
> What recommendation the group might make, if any.
> Whether the ALAC accepts our recommendation.
> What the Board does with any advice the ALAC might give based on our
> recommendation, if any.
> Dev's group has a tighter mandate since they are restricted to issues
> that are either:
> - Limited Public Interest, the euphemism used for Morality and Public
> - Harmful to a specific community
> Hope that answers.
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the information.
> Can you specifically tell me if your WG can or cannot give advice
> to ICANN (through ALAC of otherwise) against giving private tld
> exceptions, especially when generic words are being applied for as
> TLDs? I understand, as you say, that whether it actually gives any
> such rec is subject to the outcomes of the discussion, but you
> would know whether if it is at all within the mandate of your WG
> to do so. For instance, Dev's WG on gTLD reviews did not decide on
> the merit of ITfC's inputs. It did not find it to be something
> that the Group can even consider any action about. Can you group
> consider any such action in form of recs etc. This is my question.
> Thanks, parminder
> On Tuesday 25 September 2012 04:21 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> In this case the At-Large New gTLD WG, has as one of its
>> chartered work items, the task of reviewing issues with the roll
>> out of new gTLDs. The issues are brought to the group, discussed
>> and if there is support in the group for taking some form of
>> action, a recommendation its made to the ALAC. Alac then decides
>> The issue of private generic TLDs its already on the list of
>> issues to be discussed:
>> The discussion is just starting and I cannot predict at this
>> point what might come of it.
>> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> Dear Dev
>> IT for Change thanks the gTLD Review Group for giving consideration to
>> its inputs.
>> I did not quite understand that is the remit of this other group headed
>> by Avri.... What kind of output/ recs can it produce? Is commenting on
>> the overall policy within its remit? Thanks for providing these
>> clarifications. parminder
>> On Tuesday 25 September 2012 09:33 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>> Dear All, The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ;
>> https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) received a comment
>> from IT for Change, India on September 11 2012. IT for
>> Change, India's comment was not directed at a specific
>> application or ap! plicant but was posted to the At-Large
>> new gTLD Applications Dashboard at
>> for comment. The comment by IT for Change, India is that
>> allowing generic words as private TLDs (i.e with single
>> registrant, with no requirement to make second level
>> domain names available to the open market) is against the
>> public interest. Because such a concept is outside the
>> scope of any particular applicant or application, the
>> gTLD RG will not be submitting a comment for the ALAC for
>> possible submission to ICANN's new gTLD comment forum
>> before the close of the Application Comment Period on
>> September 26 2012. However, given the concept raised
>> regarding generic words becoming private TLDs has policy
>> implications that impacts individual Internet! end users,
>> the gTLD RG recommends that the issues raised be referred
>> to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group (new gTLD WG ;
>> https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and
>> possible policy recommendations. We note that the issues
>> referred to the new gTLD WG from past comments received
>> by the gTLD RG
>> have been added to the new gTLD WG's agenda. Kind
>> Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh Chair, gTLD Review Group
>> At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org
>> Avri Doria
> Avri Doria
More information about the At-Large