gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
Dear All, The gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; 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 https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG Several comments from At-Large, including members of the gTLD RG were received and posted on the wiki page at https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/.book+_OG 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) 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) for discussion and possible policy recommendations. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh Chair, gTLD Review Group
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? 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
Dear Avri, Indeed, this specific case falls under what Evan has already asked on the new gTLD WG list. Kind Regards, Dev Anand On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> 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?
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
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
Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required. On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon. Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed. As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards. It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith. And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX. - Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Evan: Although with this defense of so-called private TLDs it seems like a channeling of Groucho Marx take on private clubs - "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." - I share your perspective, although from a slightly different direction. I shall forever oppose any form of content judgment and attempts at censorship, a priori or otherwise. But I think it would be an egregious case of mission creep if ICANN begins to plumb business models as part of its remit. The argument that private TLDs restrict consumer choice is not and cannot be sustained on fact. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required.
On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon.
Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed.
As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards.
It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith.
And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX.
- Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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
I am with Evan on this. My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest. Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this approach. Cheers, R. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required. On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon. Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed. As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards. It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith. And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX. - Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Roberto, Can you provide some examples of the successful cases of public-private partnerships that you referred to? Thank you. Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am with Evan on this. My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest. Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this approach. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required.
On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon.
Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed.
As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards.
It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith.
And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX.
- Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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
The first that comes to my mind is the ETSI PPP (Public Private Partnership) model that ETSI developed in the early 90's, where the private telecom industry was actively participating with the (then monopolist) telcos and member states to the development of standards. The governance model included also a user group - probably insufficient by today's standards, but ahead of its time 20 years ago. This was substantially different from the ITU model at the same time. The success is given by the fact that, as the standards had a wide consensus at development time, they were easily and widely adopted without need for legal enforcement. Example: the GSM standard for european mobile phones. Cheers, R. PS: I am not (yet) in the governance list, so this message will not reach that audience -----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Rinalia Abdul Rahim Inviato: venerdì 10 agosto 2012 03:03 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l Dear Roberto, Can you provide some examples of the successful cases of public-private partnerships that you referred to? Thank you. Best regards, Rinalia On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am with Evan on this. My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest. Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this approach. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required.
On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon.
Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed.
As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards.
It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith.
And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX.
- Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
On 08/09/2012 05:56 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest.
What you say has a strong resemblance to a formulation that I've been advocating for several years: First Law of the Internet http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. Under this formulation one who wanted to deny a TLD would have to carry the burden of demonstrating, using clear and convincing evidence - concrete evidence, not hypothetical conjecture - that that TLD would harm the public interest to a degree and extent sufficient to justify denying to its proponent the freedom to deploy that TLD. To be sure, the formulation above is somewhat vague. But I strongly believe that if we were to adopt such formulation that experience applying this to concrete situations would help us build-out the details and turn the blurry distinctions into sharp lines. --karl--
I am with Robert, and others here, regarding the trade marks. I can tell you that private banks, for instance, have self and public interest in having a TLD for their names: there is a very interesting marketing approach in developing countries ( less educated clients) on have the last word on the digital sentence ( as the TLDs). It becomes easier to alert clients against fraud . Normally the client allow frauds for not understand correctly how to check the name of the sender. With the name of the bank as the TLD , will facilitate clients to check the sender, and not open other pages or messages. So, there are other reasons for trademarks apply for private TLD. However, I agree that makes no sense to prioritize a private generic name, if there are other candidates offering similar string for the public I believe this one should have priority. Best, vanda -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano Enviada em: quinta-feira, 9 de agosto de 2012 21:56 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l I am with Evan on this. My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest. Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this approach. Cheers, R. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required. On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon. Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed. As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards. It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith. And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX. - Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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
I agree here as well. In fact this situation could even be in the public interest by being closed to an extent. Let consider .bank (incidentally applied for, I purchased the popcorn already) This can greatly improve security to the ordinary internet user even if it's only reserved for banks, but very important, maintained by a party that is knowledgeable on the topic of banks and allowed "all" normal properly registered banks in the fiduciary system into the new TLD. As such closed to the public for domains. Imagine things like specialized DNS servers etc.... However, should some group not knowledgeable on the subject manage this commercially like the normal gTLDs, we have just another gTLD open to abuse and more of the same old so-and-so. We find localities where anyone, for a small "fee", can obtain a license to operate a bank. In reality there is no substance behind them, except for being elaborate Ponzi or like schemes (if that) and not what the layman understands to be banks. Each public facing industry/group has it's own quirks and if that industry/group wished to manage their own TLD to cater for that industry, great! It will allow them to actually make the Internet a better place and I would welcome it. Anyone willing to sponsor .abuse in the next round? :) Derek On 8/10/2012 2:56 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I am with Evan on this. My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest. Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this approach. Cheers, R.
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l
Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required.
On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue.
Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon.
Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed.
As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards.
It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith.
And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX.
- Evan
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ 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
Let consider .bank (incidentally applied for, I purchased the popcorn already)
That's a good example of the sorts of problems the new gTLD process creates. There are two applications, one from the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade association of large US banks, with the application fronted by ex-ICANN Craig Schwartz, and one from RadixRegistry which is existing registrar DirectI, fronted by Brijesh Harish Joshi (about whom I know nothing.) They both doubtless plan to carefully qualify applicants and require security standards, blah blah. But which one would you believe is more likely to continue to do so consistently over the next decade or two, even after the TLD misses its revenue forecasts by an order of magnitude? http://www.radixregistry.com/tlds/financial.php#dotbank Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
participants (11)
-
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Derek Smythe -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Evan Leibovitch -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
parminder -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda UOL