[EURO-ALS] [ALAC] (no subject)
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
> Suggested statement, the top part of which garnered approval on at
> least one of our numerous lists.
Ok, I thought we wanted something longer than this, but it'd be better
than nothing.
> ICANN should not be in the business of evaluating strings,
> period. It should publish technical criteria and minimally evaluate
> whether a registry fulfills those.
Are we sure that the criteria should be only technical? I don't buy the
argument about the healing touch of the free market. I think that there
should be criteria and that they should be liberal rather than
restrictive, based on "we approve it unless it does more harm than good".
But I don't think that, say, if someone applies for ".sucks", you should
approve it only based on technical considerations - what if it had a
policy that only trademark owners could register under it, so only
Microsoft could have microsoft.sucks and any variation of it? Is that what
you'd want from such a TLD? I think that ICANN has to check the
registration policies of new TLDs.
> Since all indications are that .xxx
> fulfils any technical criteria that ICANN has established, ICANN should
> promptly approve that agreement.
I would suggest replacing "since all indications are that" with "if", as
we didn't do the evaluation and we're not entitled to do it. I would also
strike "technical", as the criteria that ICANN established for this gTLD
round are (AFAIK) not only technical.
(I've not made my mind up on whether .xxx should be approved; until now,
it seems to me that it'd do little good and some harm, so the only reason
for approving it would be to prove the point that we need to be liberal on
this matter, even if this means harming ourselves with our liberality. On
the other hand, I'm not too comfortable in approving anything, generally
speaking, as long as you can't manage to address the opposition of those
who are not convinced yet, especially if this includes countries like
Brazil and Sweden, and even the supposed users of this new TLD, ie adult
webmasters. If the intended users don't want it, then the only possible
use of the new TLD would be letting ICM to make money with defensive
registrations - what for?)
> Further, it should promptly open
> a process for applications for new unsponsored gTLDs.
Shouldn't it finally agree on a set of criteria and an ongoing process
first? (BTW, it seems that ICANN is stuck waiting for the GNSO to finish
its PDP on the matter, so the ball is not really in the Board's playing
field at the moment.)
--
vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
_______________________________________________
EURO-ALS mailing list
EURO-ALS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org