ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] newTLD issues

  • To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] newTLD issues
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 19:30:32 -0700
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Organization: Rodenbaugh Law
  • Reply-to: <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcjhAqsT8jDyRF9MT1irhnOOIIMDnQAZ85KQ

Hi all,


Thanks to Kurt, Karla and others for the update on newTLDs in Paris, which I
greatly appreciated.  It did raise a couple questions for me though.


1.)  If newTLD Base Contract must be accepted unless demonstrated 'need' for
changes (i.e. IGOs or gov'ts, which would require Board approval of
changes), this may create an unfair situation since many if not all
incumbent gTLD registries negotiated their contracts individually.  Should
that situation be addressed upon incumbent's renewal, by forcing renewing
registries into the revised base contract unless they have demonstrated
'need' for differences?  I think this should be added as a Blue Sky issue,
but meanwhile I am curious to hear Staff feedback on this issue
(particularly if I've misinterpreted it).


2.)  If two applicants contend for the same or confusingly similar TLD
strings, one wants an open and unrestricted TLD like .com/net/org/biz/info,
and another wants a "community based" TLD that has restrictions on who can
register, like .travel/jobs/cat/museum/coop/aero.  What are the criteria on
which they would be compared to determine who wins?




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>