[NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.

[RJ Glass]

As always, well stated Evan.  And, I agree, however some things need to be restated.
 
Your statement as follows.."As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD creation process?"

Again, total agreement.  I think the only thing we CAN do to minimize harm is conduct the utmost of due dilligence, which I'm certain will be done.

aloha,

RJ Glass
A at L

 
 
 
 
 

>________________________________
>From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
>To: RJ Glass <jipshida2 at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: "ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>; NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:16 AM
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Opinions requested from the At-Large community on objection comments received on new gTLD applications.
>
>
>Hi Randy, 
>
>
>
>On 28 January 2013 22:33, RJ Glass <jipshida2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>There is a much larger issue at hand that should be addressed.
>>
>
>
>I'm not sure I agree.
>
>
>Remember. we're not re-arguing the Applicant Guidebook. Many of the really worthwhile debates (and indeed, most of the public-interest issues) related to the gTLD expansion have already, for better or worse (and generally worse), been closed. It's highly likely that many of the large issues you want to be addressed already have been, just not in any way that serves the public interest.
>
>
>ICANN has long ago decided that names -- including gTLDs -- are but commodities, driven by an industry that cares about greatest volume and speculative of names, public interest be damned. Every decision made about the new gTLD expansion has been based on that sad foundation, one which thrives on defensive activity and extracts value from the Internet rather than adding.
>
>
>The only real impediment to unfettered wide-open commoditisation has been imposed -- thanks to massive political clout -- by the legal trademark lobby. But not all names are protected; non-trademark names, such as those of non-profit bodies, common-law brands, aboriginal names and geographical regions without governing bodies are out of luck. In the stupidity that is ICANN names policy, protection of the word "olympic" (which has apparently been under merciless attack by a paint company) is more important than stopping fraudulent use of the name of Oxfarm or other non-favoured charities.
>
>
>In this world, one in which ICANN long ago decided that generic terms at the second level were up for grabs to the highest bidder, the gTLD expansion is just a high-stakes extension of the existing philosophy. And all "objections" made by At-Large have to be done under very specific conditions, the result of a process primarily intended to filter our obscene strings such as ".nazi". The current objection process does not exist to reject applications merely because we don't think they'll serve the public, unless we can identify specific communities that will experience specific harm by misrepresentation.
>
>
>Dev and his team have done an excellent job setting up the process, and it is very detailed in order to stay within the bounds of what we're entitled to object to. Unless a string is obscene or an application misrepresents an identifiable community, we don't have grounds to object (as a formal ALAC objection).
>
>
>That's it. The larger issues have been settled. What is being solicited at this time is CERTAINLY not a free-for-all expression of our feelings about any application or string; that ship sailed long ago. We are to offer feedback on specific comments -- some of them asking ALAC to launch formal objections on their behalf based on the two allowable criteria. This feedback is to be used by dev's group to determine whether justification exists to elevate the objection for greater At-Large and ALAC scrutiny. In this context, there are insufficient grounds under the available criteria for At-Large to support the objections raised regarding .amazon, .book, or .cba. I will spend some extra time determining whether the objections to .patagonia and .nyc merit consideration; until now I have been opposed, but based on comments in this thread I am prepared to re-evaluate. I won't necessarily change my mind but I do promise both comments another look.
>
>
>But Randy, please don't think that this cold approach means I disagree with your big-picture concerns. I would simply note here that the last officially-endorsed ALAC statement about the new gTLD program -- made at the Summit and never formally modified or rescinded -- unequivocally called the gTLD expansion program "unacceptable" as a matter of public interest. Current events will indicate to you how well that advice has been heeded. To this day, outside of those of our members who are themselves associated with TLD applications or domain resale, I have a hard time within At-Large finding much enthusiasm for the expansion at all. Indeed, given issues regarding compliance and protection against fraudulent use with existing domains, I still have serious concerns that the expansion program will be damaging to the public interest.
>
>
>As a result, I find myself treating current At-Large approach to the gTLD expansion as an exercise in damage mitigation. My cynicism has strangely led to indifference about the appropriateness of most specific applications, as I sincerely think that most TLDs will crash and burn anyway. Many, many registrants will be hurt along the way, many of them domainers for whom I have zero sympathy. But what can we do along the way to minimize harm to end users, knowing we can't reopen the present gTLD creation process?
>
>
>THAT IMO, is the discussion we need to (continue to) have.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>- Evan
>
>