RE: [council] The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes)
Domainincite have covered the issue here:
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bill Graham
Sent: 08 February 2013 01:12
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: Neuman, Jeff; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes)
I also would refer to the "whereas" clauses of the resolution, specifically:
> Whereas, members of the community have expressed concerns regarding
applications for "closed generic" TLDs.
> Whereas, the New gTLD Program Committee considers that it is important to
understand all views and potential ramifications relating to 'closed
That is a pretty accurate description of the motivation behind the
On 2013-02-07, at 19:58, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hello Jeff,
>>> . In that paper it seems like staff dismisses the idea of not allowing
closed generics or changing anything. That said, something must have
happened at the board level to put that in doubt.
> It appears that the committee felt that it should seek advice from the
ICANN community in general, as well as the GNSO specifically.
> Although the minutes of the meeting on 1/2 Feb are not yet available,
some of the comments from the minutes of the 10 Jan will give you a clue to
some of the sentiments:
> "Mike Silber noted that the global public interest also guides ICANN, and
that has to be factored in. Many of the Board members will be uncomfortable
approving TLDs that are seen as a land grab, as opposed to expansion of the
> George Sadowsky agreed with the clarification of the two issues as
presented by Karen, but noted that there should be consideration of whether
registrants are allowed to look at qualifications for registering in TLDs.
The global public interest has to be considered, and there has to be
consideration of who decides how this is considered when faced with an
application for an exemption. Some of the applicants have clearly already
considered that they wish to seek an exemption, and some of these may go
directly against the spirit of the creation of the exemption. We have to
address this issue now.
> Erika Mann commented that she approaches this issue differently. It's
important to clarify the definition of the public interest. This is a
separate endeavor from understanding generic strings, which can be
considered breaking apart those that are within a regulated sector and those
which are not. It's important to look for viable solutions, such as
consideration of a misuse of dominance provision. The Committee would
benefit from additional discussion on this topic at the workshop.
> Olga Madruga-Forti thanked Karen for her paper and summary. Olga noted
that there seems to be some consensus in the Committee that this is a
problem that has to be dealt with, and noted that there may be some concerns
of competition policy that should be incorporated into the consideration of
the global public interest.
> Gonzalo Navarro noted that this issue is not going to be resolved now and
that the conversation deserves more time.
> Heather Dryden contributed that some GAC members have identified concerns
related to these issue. Further conversation is welcomed.
> The Chair summarized that that Committee needs more time and clarity on
this issue. A serious discussion is to follow in Los Angeles."
> Bruce Tonkin