[GTLD-WG] Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of Common Words as TLDs

Evan Leibovitch evan at telly.org
Tue Nov 13 20:24:33 UTC 2012


The short answer is that ICANN has already burned that bridge with TLDs
such as .pro, .museum and .name

The longer answer is that the "private" ownership of TLDs offers the first
fundamental opportunity for innovation in the domain namespace in decades,
and should be encouraged. And since ICANN has already long ago established
-- for better or worse -- that words are commodities, it is in the public
interest to encourage as many different schemes for domain allocation as
possible.

And the even longer answer will be developed in the workspace allocated for
discussing this issue, as noted in my original post

This debate continues in the gTLD working group and in that workspace, and
I look forward to lively engagement on this issue.

- Evan



On 13 November 2012 15:09, RJ Glass <jipshida2 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am in agreement.
>
> RJGlass
> A at L
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: CW Mail <mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> To: ICANN GTLD WG list <gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 5:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Workspace on the Issue of Private Ownership of
> Common Words as TLDs
>
> Good evening:
>
> I want to make it quite clear that I am totally opposed to the private
> use of generic words in English or any other language as TLD domain
> names. The only exception that I would be prepared to contemplate
> would be that the generic domains would be OPEN to all users in that
> community, as endorsed by ICANN and the GAC.
>
> This issue has been on the table for nearly 15 years. It is time to
> draw the line.
>
> Regards to you all
>
> Christopher Wilkinson
>
>
>
> On 12 Nov 2012, at 16:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> > https://community.icann.org/x/woFEAg
> >
> > Maybe it's misnamed or mis-placed, but I need to start somewhere. I'll
> > woirk the mechanics out with Staff.
> >
> > Here is where I (and others on the call who expressed an interest)
> > will
> > work on summary of the general opinions raised in the two received
> > objections, as well as an analysis. The document may or may not call
> > for
> > further ALAC action, but at very least will attempt to reflect the
> > discussions that have gone on so far on the issue.
> >
> > I welcome any input as this is being developed -- either as a
> > comment on
> > the wiki page, private or public communications.
> >
> > --
> > Evan Leibovitch
> > Toronto Canada
> >
> > Em: evan at telly dot org
> > Sk: evanleibovitch
> > Tw: el56
> > _______________________________________________
> > GTLD-WG mailing list
> > GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> >
> > Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
>
> Working Group direct URL:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56


More information about the GTLD-WG mailing list