Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing
ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC advice. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jun13-en.htm>) Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice. Safeguards for all gTLDs Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy checks. GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for safeguard violations. ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a basis for suspension". But that's not the same as actually requiring Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found. Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions that are useful to protect consumers and users. That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue with the GAC. ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of the same TLD. The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice. I don't think this issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion between the singular and plural of the exact same TLD. Moreover, this is an awful precedent for the next round, since it would seem to permit new applications for the plural version of existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), and com(s). -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Thanks, Steve. Perhaps we want to sort of do a check list of our own, on what the Board accepted from GAC advice, that was consistent, or partly consistent with our own strong and ongoing input to the Board, public forums, public comments, and GAC. From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:08:33 +0000 ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC advice. (link) Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice. Safeguards for all gTLDs Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy checks. GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for safeguard violations. ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a basis for suspension". But that's not the same as actually requiring Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found. Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions that are useful to protect consumers and users. That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue with the GAC. ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of the same TLD. The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice. I don't think this issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion between the singular and plural of the exact same TLD. Moreover, this is an awful precedent for the next round, since it would seem to permit new applications for the plural version of existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), and com(s). -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Responding to request from Marilyn, in preparation for tomorrow's BC call. Attached is a matrix showing GAC's Beijing Advice, BC positions, and what ICANN's Board has said so far. For reference: The GAC Beijing Advice is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf>. BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advice%20for%20new%20gTLDs%20FINAL[4].pdf>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13-en.htm>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm>. -- Steve From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com<mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com>> Date: Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:30 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing Thanks, Steve. Perhaps we want to sort of do a check list of our own, on what the Board accepted from GAC advice, that was consistent, or partly consistent with our own strong and ongoing input to the Board, public forums, public comments, and GAC. ________________________________ From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:08:33 +0000 ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC advice. (link<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27jun13-en.htm>) Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice. Safeguards for all gTLDs Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy checks. GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for safeguard violations. ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a basis for suspension". But that's not the same as actually requiring Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found. Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions that are useful to protect consumers and users. That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue with the GAC. ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of the same TLD. The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice. I don't think this issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion between the singular and plural of the exact same TLD. Moreover, this is an awful precedent for the next round, since it would seem to permit new applications for the plural version of existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), and com(s). -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
Impressive. Thanks for doing this so quickly and efficiently Steve. Stéphane Sent from my/Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 1 juil. 2013 à 05:16, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> a écrit :
Responding to request from Marilyn, in preparation for tomorrow's BC call.
Attached is a matrix showing GAC's Beijing Advice, BC positions, and what ICANN's Board has said so far.
For reference: The GAC Beijing Advice is here. BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is here.
-- Steve
From: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com> Date: Sunday, June 30, 2013 1:30 AM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, bc - GNSO list <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing
Thanks, Steve.
Perhaps we want to sort of do a check list of our own, on what the Board accepted from GAC advice, that was consistent, or partly consistent with our own strong and ongoing input to the Board, public forums, public comments, and GAC.
From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:08:33 +0000
ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC advice. (link)
Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice.
Safeguards for all gTLDs Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy checks.
GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for safeguard violations. ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a basis for suspension". But that's not the same as actually requiring Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found.
Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions that are useful to protect consumers and users.
That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue with the GAC.
ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of the same TLD. The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice. I don't think this issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion between the singular and plural of the exact same TLD. Moreover, this is an awful precedent for the next round, since it would seem to permit new applications for the plural version of existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), and com(s).
-- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482
<Interim Scorecard on GAC Beijing Advice.docx>
BC Members: I updated our matrix of GAC's Beijing Advice to reflect 2-July resolutions of the Board New GTLD Program Committee (NGPC) Headlines: Category 1 strings are on hold, pending dialogue with GAC in Durban. International government organizations (IGO) get temporary 2nd level protection — to be resolved later this year. But if NGPC and GAC do not reach agreement on implementation issues by the first meeting after Durban, registry operators are required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" Annex 1 For reference: The GAC Beijing Advice is here<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf>. BC Comments on GAC Safeguards is here<http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/BC%20Comment%20on%20GAC%20Advice%20for%20new%20gTLDs%20FINAL[4].pdf>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 4-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04jun13-en.htm>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 25-Jun resolution is here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm>. Board New gTLD Program Committee's 2-Jul resolution is <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm> here<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm>. -- Steve
participants (3)
-
Marilyn Cade -
Steve DelBianco -
Stéphane Van Gelder