Comment re: Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement
To: ICANN My Comments re: Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cat-renewal-2015-05-28-en> Proposed Renewal of .PRO Unsponsored Registry Agreement <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/pro-renewal-2015-05-28-en> This is nothing less than an underhanded attempt by ICANN staff to bypass ICANN multistakeholder policy-making processes to apply new gTLDs URS policy <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs> *against* *domain name registrants* of *incumbent, or “legacy,” gTLDs*--.CAT, .PRO, .TRAVEL (and by implication, *all legacy* *gTLDs*--.COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.)--which in the case of .TRAVEL has already received an overwhelming negative response in comments posted <http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/06/most-comments-oppose-icann-extending.html>, and I incorporate by reference herein my comment on .TRAVEL (in its entirety) posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-travel-renewal-12may15/msg00004.html. "Desire for uniformity of the Registry Agreement" is a poor excuse for ICANN staff attempting to bypass stakeholder policy-making processes, and make "uniform" that which was specifically made *not* to be uniform, not to mention the variations and lack of uniformity within just the *new gTLD registry agreements*. In addition, it is hardly "voluntary" when ICANN staff prepares and present a Registry Agreement with the URS included, to a renewing *legacy gTLD* registry operator. The "affected parties" are *primarily* *domain name registrants*, and ICANN staff has no clue about domain name registrants since there is *no* domain name registrants’ stakeholder group within ICANN. ICANN officers and staff tend to forget that new gTLDs <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/> are an "experiment" and *new gTLDs* total less than 2% of all domain names registered globally <http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/06/will-ietf-rirs-cctlds-verisign-just.html>. See also: Domain Mondo | domainmondo.com: ICANN is NOT a new gTLDs Marketing Agency: ICANN 53 Review, Part 3 <http://www.domainmondo.com/2015/06/icann-is-not-new-gtlds-marketing-agency.html> . ICANN staff have apparently decided to start making ICANN policy by applying a URS policy *intended only for new gTLDs **against* *all registrants of *legacy or incumbent* gTLD domain names. *There are* many, many reasons not *to register* new gTLD domain names—Universal Acceptance *(*new gTLD domain names* “failing to work as expected across the internet” or “break stuff”), *exorbitant or extortionate pricing schemes*, and the *defective* *URS policy—which is why I am not a registrant of any new gTLD domain names. * Therefore, the .PRO. .CAT, and .TRAVEL and all other legacy gTLDs renewal RAs should be referred for Board consideration only after Specification 7/URS has been removed from the agreement, along with all other provisions derived from the *new gTLD RA* which may have been inserted by ICANN staff that are not established consensus policies applicable to legacy or incumbent gTLDs. Respectfully submitted, John Poole, *Editor, **Domain Mondo* <http://www.domainmondo.com> *Managing Director, Expri Communications LLC* Attachment:
CommentsPROCAT.pdf |