ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

[ga] New gTLD PDP Update

  • To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [ga] New gTLD PDP Update
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=EDpPFdXp97vb+odICdUh98tK69hXsAEZDHaWd3nkamPjmEK8pCVIpGkneLGrkJHHbeQrdOyT3v2sCH2sbqsJHfp5FypPeEU7WqZXSJmiof5KjH2mACVy+TSjJAn1DF+IUIAB3GuLs6CDkoMKJLQ9AiN7XATj6cP1SLT+BMpTX4E= ;
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ICANN Staffer Liz Williams has produced a DRAFT
Recommendations Summary pertaining to the PDP on new
gTLDs.  It may be found here: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-council/msg00215.html

There are several sections of this Summary that I
continue to find troubling, such as:

Principles f) That a set of ?business capability
criteria? for a new gTLD registry applicant provides
an assurance that an applicant has the capability to
meet its business ambitions.

or

4.4	There should be renewal expectancy.  A contract
would be renewed provided that the license holder is
not in material breach of the contract, or has not
been found in repeated non-performance of the
contract, and provided the license holder agrees to
the any new framework contract conditions that are
reasonably acceptable.    Any new framework contract
would take into account the consensus policies in
place at that time.

I would ask you all to closely examine this document
as the future of new gTLDs may well depend upon the
outcome of GNSO deliberations on the topic.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>