Jeff, This is meant to be a proposal for a closed TLD, and not an open restricted TLD. There would be no third party registrants. It's possible that in the press of time, and drafting by committee, we were not sufficiently clear. Can you point to some specific places where this jumps out at you? I did a final scrub last night and made some changes meant to clarify this, but I clearly did not catch them all. We can revise and either recirculate or hold this draft for further comments. Either way, we want this point to be completely clear and unambiguous. Best regards. Greg On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:38 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Thanks for this proposal George and the team. The major item that jumps out at me is that the TLD structure you describe is not really a “closed” TLD, but rather is akin an “open restricted” TLD.
Anyone can already apply for an “open restricted” TLD without any of the restrictions you have set forth in this paper. This is like .bank, .pharmacy or others that have third party registrants who agree to very strict validation requirements. So, if I can apply for a .earthquake (your example) as an “open restricted” TLD without any of the restrictions that are contained within your paper, why would I apply for your “PICgTLD” and agree up front to (a) no expectancy of renewal; (b) restrictions on transfers; (c) obligations of a Council, (d) approval by the board, etc.? What is the benefit for me to do that when I can achieve the same thing without agreeing to any of that?
Now if we stated that all of the registrations are “owned” by the Registry itself for use in connection with itself and its members, then perhaps that gets closer to the closed TLD. Thus, the registry could “license” registrations to third parties (not transfer ownership) so long as the registry itself always maintains ownership of the names and can control the type of content on the sites.
Thanks for kicking off the discussion.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *George Sadowsky *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM *To:* gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public interest generic gTLDs
All,
As promised, attached is our proposed method of implementing the use of new closed generic top level domains in the public interest within the DNS. It has been formulated by Alan Greenberg, Kathy Kleiman, Greg Shatan and me. We believe that it has merit and deserves consideration by both the working group and the broader ICANN community, and we welcome the opportunity to present it for comment, discussion and criticism. We believe that while there are improvements can be made, the approach of creating such a category of TLDs, trusted and protected to serve a public interest, is a goal that can be achieved.
We hope that the proposal and the approach that it takes to implementing such a new class of gTLDs will receive serious consideration and criticism by the community.
Regards,
George
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
