ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comment re: Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement

  • To: comments-cat-renewal-28may15@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comment re: Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement
  • From: John Poole <jp1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 18:42:15 -0500


My Comments re:
Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement

Proposed Renewal of .PRO Unsponsored Registry Agreement

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
and I incorporate by reference herein my comment on .TRAVEL (in its
entirety) posted here:

"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
See also: Domain Mondo | domainmondo.com: ICANN is NOT a new gTLDs
Marketing Agency: ICANN 53 Review, Part 3

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
Description: Adobe PDF document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy