On Thursday 09 August 2012 05:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
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) for discussion and possible policy recommendations.
Within the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, Evan has already asked that generic word private TLDs be added as an issue the ANgWG discuss further. I am assuming this specific case can fall under that category. Is that ok?
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue. I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them. Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established and proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very clearly exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair monopoly (like, maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be so necessary! But that is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds using generic names like .book must be an absolute NO...... I dont know how any such proposal survived so many committee, reviews etc that may have gone into the decision about new gtlds... parminder
I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the work table <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Rollout+Issues>. Please let me know if there is more action required at this time.
thanks
avri
_______________________________________________ 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