Holly, did you mean "RAA" or "RA". This new version of the Registry Agreement includes a VERY large number of changes, some no doubt houskeeping, and some quite substantive. No time now for a careful review. Regarding the language that Phil calls out, I see it more as a house-keeping change and removing the need for an ICANN judgement call, although it may force some closed TLDs to use registrars who might have squeaked through with the old words. The use of this part of the RA to avoid using registrars is, in my opinion, a red herring. It makes life easier and cheaper for an organization that plans to use all sub-domains itself, but it is not a requirement. Amazon could still own all sub-domains on its .book (as an example), and still pay some registrar a nominal amount per domain, and it would have to set up a cumbersome communications protocol to enact this. But it would not stop the closed usage. Alan At 30/04/2013 07:03 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Everyone
I don't know how many of you get Phil's stuff, but maybe he is right and the issue of 'closed generic' TLDs is addressed?
Would someone closer to this issue check to see if he is right. (and please put something on the wiki - either to say we are happy that the latest RAA addresses the issue - or not)
Thanks
Holly
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz@facebookmail.com> Date: 1 May 2013 8:20:27 AM AEST To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)" <283484908411146@groups.facebook.com> Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been... Reply-To: Reply to comment <g+40rp409t000zg543zelp004ehdt4hb53000zg4db9t612c346@groups.facebook.com>
Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)
Philip Corwin 1 May 08:20 The purported "closed generic' loophole has been eliminated in this new RA draft.
I just took a look at the redline version of Specification 9 in the revised gTLD RA -- the Code of Conduct.
ICANN has struck the words that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD; from Section 1b, replacing it with language permitting a registry operator to have up to 100 domains for its own exclusive use. It was the purpose reference that was the basis for applicant claims that they could be the sole registrant in their own gTLD without seeking a Section 6 exemption. So the purported loophole is now gone, and all "closed generic applicants must now seek a section 6 public interest exemption.
Looks like ICANN is already taking GAC advice...
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement | ICANN www.icann.org Comment / Reply Periods (*)Comment Open Date: 29 April 2013Comment Close Date: 20 May 2013 - 23:59 U...
View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)