[At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments by IT for Change, India

[John R. Levine]

> Without commenting on the merits of "private gTLDs", the "exemption"
> being discussed is not in relation to who may register 2nd level
> names in the TLD. It is addressing whether the Registry needs to use
> ICANN accredited Registars to effect registrations. Essentially, it
> is saying you must use an ICANN accredited Registrar unless all
> registrations are solely for the use of the Registry or its affiliates.

Good point.  A few minutes looing at the applications at 
http://gtldresult.icann.org would have revealed that all of the 
single-registrant applications do say that they'll go through a registrar.

The registrar exemption was proposed for the non-profit .museum and 
perhaps .coop TLDs, who have said that the complicated multistep 
registration process has made it too hard for many eligible registrants,
particularly small ones who do not speak fluent English.

If someone thinks that single-registrant domains for commercial brands are 
a bad idea, I'd think that the question would be whether they're 
compatible with ICANN's public interest mandate.  Take a look at 
1-1845-68316 (.MUTUALFUNDS), 1-1302-76087 (.BEAUTY), and 1-1085-40392 
(.CONNECTORS), for example.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly