RE: [council] The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes)
All, Please see attached for a draft response to the New gTLD committee on the issue of "closed generic" TLDs. N.B. The deadline is very tight. Our response is due on or before 7th March 2013. Therefore, please provide ASAP your input on: 1. Whether or not this accurately reflects the view of the Council (particularly with reference to our discussion at the 14 February meeting of the Council) and/or 2. Any other aspect of this letter which you consider particularly relevant or important to include. Thank-you. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Robinson Sent: 08 February 2013 16:57 To: 'Bill Graham'; 'Bruce Tonkin' Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [council] The issue of "closed generic" TLDs (10 minutes) All, FYI. Domainincite have covered the issue here: http://domainincite.com/11785-closed-gtld-debate-threatens-google-and-amazon Jonathan -----Original Message----- 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 generic' TLDs. That is a pretty accurate description of the motivation behind the resolution. Best Bill On 2013-02-07, at 19:58, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 DNS. > > 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." > > Regards, > Bruce Tonkin > > > Attachment:
Letter to ICANN Board - Closed Generic TLDs - 5 March 2013 (Draft).docx
|