RE: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice from Beijing

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Steve. 
Perhaps we want to sort of do a check list of our own, on what the Board 
accepted from GAC advice, that was consistent, or partly consistent with our 
own strong and ongoing input to the Board, public forums, public comments, and 
GAC. 




From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Latest ICANN New gTLD Committee resolutions on GAC Advice 
from Beijing
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:08:33 +0000








ICANN's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) agreed to several aspects of GAC 
advice. (link)








Overall, the NGPC concluded that acceptance and implementation of GAC 
safeguards would bring less delay and uncertainty than the protracted 
consultations required if ICANN rejects GAC advice.









Safeguards for all gTLDs

Governments should appreciate that ICANN takes ownership of WHOIS accuracy 
checks. 



GAC advised ICANN to "ensure there are real and immediate consequences" for 
safeguard violations.  ICANN's response is say these violations would "be a 
basis for suspension".  But that's not the same as actually
requiring Registrars to suspend the name if violations are found.






Restricted gTLDs and exclusive generic TLDs

ICANN accepted safeguards on how TLDs should enforce registrant restrictions 
that are useful to protect consumers and users.     



That's different from the issue of generic TLDs for the exclusive use of a 
single company, where ICANN just called a time-out to have further dialogue 
with the GAC.
















ICANN will not re-do contention sets between singular and plural versions of 
the same TLD.  



















The NGPC did "reconsider" the decision to delegate both singular and plurals, 
but I doubt the GAC views that as "accepting" their advice.  I don't think this 
issue is closed since nearly everyone sees probable user confusion between the 
singular and plural
 of the exact same TLD.   Moreover, this is an awful precedent for the next 
round, since it would seem to permit new applications for the plural version of 
existing TLDs, like org(s), net(s), and com(s). 

















-- 
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and 
http://blog.netchoice.org 
+1.202.420.7482