Re: [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] [At-Large] [New gTLD RG] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
At 07/10/2012 07:28 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
Dear Alan,
My comments are in-line.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Sala, two comments.
1. You use the term "sponsoring organizations" (sometimes capitalized). The concept of a "Sponsored" TLD has a very specific meaning in ICANN, referring to some of the TLDs that were delegated in the last decade. I do not believe that the term is used in relation to the new gTLD program.
Sala: "1.16 A Registered Name is "sponsored" by the registrar that placed the record associated with that registration into the registry. Sponsorship of a registration may be changed at the express direction of the Registered Name Holder or, in the event a registrar loses accreditation, in accordance with then-current ICANN specifications and policies." from the RAA Template via: <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-17may01-en.htm#1>http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/raa-17may01-en.htm#1
Yes, the word is used in reference to a Registar who passes 2nd/3rd level registration to a Registry. But your context ("granting Sponsoring organisations exclusive rights over gTLDs") was to a Registry and a TLD.
2. In your last bullet, you make reference to TLD which are not open to general registration of 2nd level domains. The Internet is full of such TLDs, including many ccTLDs with strong restrictions on who can register 2nd (or even 3rd) level names, and a slew of gTLDs with very restrictive registration policies.
ICANN has generally accepted and advocates that regulation of the ccTLD is not within its ambits as this is administered under the various countries where each ccTLD is subject to their respective country's laws as far as regulation is concerned. Countries differ in their approaches. To some extent, there are jurists who argue that the same can be said for the gTLD market. On the other hand the material distinction is on which occassions and which instances ICANN has a say. It would appear that ICANN does not have a say in ccTLD registration policies compared to the gTLD policies where ICANN does have a say. My comments in my last email was restricted to what is within ICANN's power to influence, that is their domain/jurisdiction.
Exactly. And ICANN has regularly allowed gTLDs with restrictive registration policies.
I am not sure that the situation is so dissimilar in that although these TLDs do allow SOME registrations, they forbid many others. If you are specifically worried about such use of TLDs that are also generic words, that should be explicit.
Alan
I would be interested in seeing studies on the impact of closed market registries and perceived impact.
At 07/10/2012 06:26 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
The fact that Google is generally considered to be an intermediary service provider, they need to demonstrate that in not allowing second level .blog names to end users is not contrary to global public interest. Policy influences that largely impact on how Google operates.
My main concern would be whether we have access to a Study on the Impact of Closed Generic Term Registries and the Impact on global public interest, ICANN's core mission etc. If such a study was done, grateful if the community could point out to me a link so I can read.
- Closing off generic name spaces for exclusive use in the wake of extremely poor global campaigns and awareness where ICANN or the gTLD programme is involved; - Challenges for end users and consumers noting that there are consumer groups that have already started lobbying US Senate on the perceived harm; - Controversies surrounding changing the rules during the game vrs GAC Intervention; - Regulatory trends within the US will have an impact on ICANN's policy decisions as far as anti trust, competition is concerned, we have recently seen this when the The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge on 4 August 2012 *Manwin Licensing International S.A.R.L., et al. v. ICM Registry, LLC, et al.*had ruled that anti-trust claims could be filed over controversial .xxx [see:
<http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf>http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf ]. Not for profit organisations
may be subject to the *Sherman Act*. - On one hand, we are saying we advocate an open and free internet but the mere granting Sponsoring organisations exclusive rights over gTLDs without ensuring that these organisations open up registrations of second level domain to others becomes reminiscent of Incumbent Telecom operators pre-liberalisation of markets and whilst it will generate substantial revenue for both these sponsoring organisations and ICANN, it will [eventually] force someone either within the US [Senate or DoC] where this could mean that since ICANN is incapable of self-regulatory aspects to protect global public interest that it may be regulated. This same argument can be used by those Governments who already feel that ICANN should be internationalized if not regulated;
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Seth M Reiss <<mailto:seth.reiss@lex-ip.com>seth.reiss@lex-ip.com> wrote:
Sala How so?****
** **
*From:* <mailto:newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org>newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro *Sent:* Friday, October 05, 2012 2:02 PM *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond *Cc:* ALAC Working List; New gTLD Review Group; Susan Chalmers; apralo; At-Large Worldwide *Subject:* Re: [New gTLD RG] [ALAC] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l****
** **
Dear Dev and All,****
** **
The Association of American Publishers and Google entered into a settlement, see: <http://www.publishers.org/press/85/>http://www.publishers.org/press/85/ I thought that this would be of interest to the .book debate****
** **
Kind Regards,****
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@gih.com> wrote:****
Dear Dev,
thank you very much for your email explaining the course of action which you recommend. I am CC'ing the present email to the ALAC for its information. I also trust that Avri Doria, Chair of the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, will be picking up the ball from here. I look forward to her WG making recommendations as to the course of action they suggest.
Best regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
On 08/08/2012 19:51, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Dear All,
The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; <https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ>https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) received a comment on community objection grounds by InternetNZ, an ALS in APRALO, on the application by Amazon EU S.A.R.L for the applied for gTLD string "book" on July 26 2012.
InternetNZ's comment was posted to the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard Workspace at
Several comments from At-Large, including members of the gTLD RG were received and posted on the wiki page at
including a condensed version of InternetNZ's comment by gTLD RG members Eduardo Diaz and Yrjo Lansipuro.
The comments by InternetNZ and others raises concerns regarding the availability of 2nd level domains under generic TLDs. Whether domains under such proposed generic TLDs should be available or "open" to the wider public or "closed" to the applicants applying for the proposed gTLD.
Because such concepts are outside the scope of the application for ".book" by Amazon EU s.a.r.l, the gTLD RG on its conference call on Monday August 6 2012 (<https://community.icann.org/x/iAUeAg>https://community.icann.org/x/iAUeAg) decided not to submit a comment on this application to the ALAC for possible submission to ICANN's new gTLD comment forum before the close of the Application Comment Period.
However, given the concepts raised regarding the availability of 2nd level domains under gTLDs has policy implications that impacts individual Internet end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group
(<https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi>https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and possible
policy recommendations.
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh Chair, gTLD Review Group
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
****
****
** **
-- ****
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala****
P.O. Box 17862****
Suva****
Fiji****
** **
Twitter: @SalanietaT****
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro****
Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851****
** **
****
** **
** **
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: <tel:%2B679%20998%202851>+679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org>At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji
Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Snip....
Sala: From the ICANN Glossary, see: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
"*gTLD* Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic" TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as described in more detail below. In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four have limited purposes. In 2001 & 2002 four new unsponsored TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro) were introduced. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and .museum) were sponsored. *Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus carries out delegated policy-formulation responsibilities over many matters concerning the TLD*." I would assume that the policy formulation would include 2TLDs.
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro