Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been...
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.
If you ask me, this is changing policy by administrative. But since this is a poilcy change that many in the GNSO happen to like -- erecting barriers to innovation and protecting established interests -- they'll let this instance slide. :-P On 30 April 2013 19:03, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> 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...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
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...)
On 30 April 2013 22:33, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
Ahh ICANN..Where registrars can insert themselves in the domain creation process -- and the registry is forced to pay them off -- even when they're not needed at all. Your TLD can be closed so long as you pay the extorti^H^H^H^H^H^H^H appropriate fees. It's just one more shakedown to add to the list of many. - Evan
Unless I'm looking at the wrong wiki space, I've not seen a comment from anybody yet! -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>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...)
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche