<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head>
<body>
Jeff, as Greg noted, since it is a closed TLD, all
"registrations" are owned by the registry, so they are not
actually registrations.<br><br>
In terms of your first question, why not just a restricted open TLD, you
are basically correct.<br><br>
We went with the premise that in light of GAC advice, the only closed
generics will be ones that are demonstrable serve a public interest goal.
If as you hypothesize, all such public interest closed generics *COULD*
be implemented as open restricted, then there is no need for closed
generics and the PDP recommends that closed generics not be allowed.
Period. End of discussion.<br><br>
The rational for why one would select our proposal over an open
restricted is that the proposal rules cover all of the objections that
could be raised to an open restricted TLD - such as being based on an
insufficient governing structure for instance. More important, the
registration restrictions would have to be very difficult and specific on
how nth level registrations and extensions are used and the types of
content allowed. I'm not sure there are TLDs with such restrictions. The
closed TLD can set all the rules for how the overall TLD is use,
allocating 2nd level, 3rd level, 4th level, etc. names as they best suit
its purpose. So the "restricted" would be FAR more than just
validating credentials.<br><br>
Note that in our proposal the first characteristic we are looking for is
TRUST. The proposal is designed to help build public trust in the TLD. AN
open restricted domain MIGHT do that, but it might not. <br><br>
We were working on the presumption that one of the major concerns was
predictability - that an application not be made that could be shot down
in a multitude of ways and at the very least, subjected to long
delays.<br><br>
So "follow the PICG rules, and the chances of actually being able to
deploy the TLD are much better." And with that comes some conditions
as you note.<br><br>
But as I started with, if there is no value to what we are proposing,
then perhaps the best path is to simply forbid such closed TLDs.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 2020-07-21 09:38 AM, Jeff Neuman wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">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.<br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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.<br><br>
Thanks for kicking off the discussion.<br>
<br>
<img src="cid:.0" width="300" height="3" alt="[]"><br>
<br>
<img src="cid:.1" width="219" height="123" alt="[]"><br>
Jeffrey J. Neuman<br>
Founder & CEO<br>
JJN Solutions, LLC<br>
p: +1.202.549.5079<br>
E: <a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a><br>
<a href="http://jjnsolutions.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://jjnsolutions.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>George Sadowsky<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 21, 2020 7:03 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal for introducing new public
interest generic gTLDs<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
George<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of
Service
(<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" eudora="autourl">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></body>
</html>