Re: [alac] Comment on new gTLDs TOR

[shahshah@xxxxxxxx]

I hope the narrower interpretation is unambiguously adopted. Possible
implications for IDNs of the broader interpretation could be devastating;
it would legitimize the DName campaign.
Siavash

> Thanks, Wendy. This is a good comment to make. The registrars plan to say
> something similar. Bruce Tonkin mentioned to the registrars that he
> interpreted "clearly differentiated" narrowly, to mean that we shouldn't
> have something like a ".COMM" or a ".INFORM." I believe the Business and
> IP
> constituencies are interpreting this more broadly, to mean that we should
> parse the name space by segment, so you wouldn't have both a ".NAME" and a
> ".PERSON." I agree with you that the broader interpretation runs against
> ICANN's mandate. One of the agenda items for the next council meeting is
> to
> more clearly define these terms.
>
>      -- Bret
>
>
> On 8/15/06 5:12 PM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I intend to file personal comments to
>> newgtlds-comments@xxxxxxxxxx  If anyone wants to join me, here's the
>> basic substance:
>>
>> I object to the TOR 2.15 recommendation: "Applicants must offer a
>> clearly differentiated domain name space with respect to defining the
>> purpose of the application. "    I believe this requirement conflicts
>> with several of ICANN's core values, most particularly those of
>> reliance on the market (5), competition (6), and minimization of
>> interference (2).
>
>


*************************************************
IPM/IRNIC
P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
Tehran 19548, Iran
Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 82 80 81, ext 113
Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxxxxx
*************************************************