ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[comments-cat-renewal-28may15]


<<< 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

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
Description: Adobe PDF document



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy