[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Thu Aug 29 11:55:55 UTC 2019


Hi Rubens,

that’s why I included:

They would need to provide extraordinary circumstances to get an extension.



Alexander

 

 

 

 

From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk at nic.br] 
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 2:44 PM
To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Closed Generics and the 2012 Round

 

 





On 29 Aug 2019, at 08:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> > wrote:

 

Maxim,

 

Thanks for bringing this up. Well: CURRENTLY there are only a few “cases”. So let these few brands continue to operate their gTLDs effectively as “closed generic”.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shut down the loophole for future rounds. We would open the floodgates if we wouldn’t.

So if “closed generics” remain unavailable (which the “small group” is sorting out right now) ICANN should incorporate in the RA (registry agreement) clear provisions regarding the rollout timeline – and penalties for failing to roll out within a specific period; including but not limited to cancel the contract.  If an applicant is the only registrant within its gTLD – and that over a prolonged period of time – he is (inadvertently) meeting the definition of a “closed generic” (as defined by the community). The “rollout grace period” could be several years long. But when somebody doesn’t roll out and offer no concrete plans how to do so MANY YEARS after delegation? They would need to provide extraordinary circumstances to get an extension. They applied for the gTLD in order to provide registrations to the public. If they do not provide registrations to the public: how does that benefit the public? How does that meet the ICANN mission? It doesn’t. We need to make that a “breach of contract”.

 

 

Alexander,

 

And what responsibility for ICANN not to derail applicant's plans would be also enshrined in the contract ? Fairness stipulates that this should go both ways. 

 

 

Rubens

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190829/2c774233/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list