Avri Thanks for the information. Can you specifically tell me if your WG can or cannot give advice to ICANN (through ALAC of otherwise) against giving private tld exceptions, especially when generic words are being applied for as TLDs? I understand, as you say, that whether it actually gives any such rec is subject to the outcomes of the discussion, but you would know whether if it is at all within the mandate of your WG to do so. For instance, Dev's WG on gTLD reviews did not decide on the merit of ITfC's inputs. It did not find it to be something that the Group can even consider any action about. Can you group consider any such action in form of recs etc. This is my question. Thanks, parminder On Tuesday 25 September 2012 04:21 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
In this case the At-Large New gTLD WG, has as one of its chartered work items, the task of reviewing issues with the roll out of new gTLDs. The issues are brought to the group, discussed and if there is support in the group for taking some form of action, a recommendation its made to the ALAC. Alac then decides whether
The issue of private generic TLDs its already on the list of issues to be discussed: https://community.icann.org/m/view-page.action?spaceKey=atlarge&title=Rollou...
The discussion is just starting and I cannot predict at this point what might come of it.
parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Dear Dev
IT for Change thanks the gTLD Review Group for giving consideration to its inputs.
I did not quite understand that is the remit of this other group headed by Avri.... What kind of output/ recs can it produce? Is commenting on the overall policy within its remit? Thanks for providing these clarifications. parminder
On Tuesday 25 September 2012 09:33 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Dear All, The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) received a comment from IT for Change, India on September 11 2012. IT for Change, India's comment was not directed at a specific application or ap! plicant but was posted to the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard at https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/multiple-strings-by-IT-for-cha... for comment. The comment by IT for Change, India is that allowing generic words as private TLDs (i.e with single registrant, with no requirement to make second level domain names available to the open market) is against the public interest. Because such a concept is outside the scope of any particular applicant or application, the gTLD RG will not be submitting a comment for the ALAC for possible submission to ICANN's new gTLD comment forum before the close of the Application Comment Period on September 26 2012. However, given the concept raised regarding generic words becoming private TLDs 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 (new gTLD WG ; https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and possible policy recommendations. We note that the issues referred to the new gTLD WG from past comments received by the gTLD RG (https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG) have been added to the new gTLD WG's agenda. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh Chair, gTLD Review Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org
Avri Doria