ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg]


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

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Comments/Questions recording wordings in final report

  • To: JAS <soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Comments/Questions recording wordings in final report
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:52:59 -0400

Some of you may have seen my comments earlier today with respect to the slides to be used in the webinar. A few of the issues have not been conclusively resolved, so I am bringing them to the attention of the whole WG, in the context of the report instead of the PowerPoint presentation.

Any replies prior to the first webinar or preferably by Friday to allow the slides to be changed would be appreciated.

These obviously also might have implications regarding revising the final report. I presume there will be typos and other things that are noticed in the next few days.

Alan

==================

68.a and corresponding language in the Exec Summary

This is related to the .brand prohibition. The wording in the final report says:

An applicant for a gTLD string that is not a generic word intended to reference a specific commercial entity (commonly referred to within ICANN as a "dot.brand"); We spent a lot of time on this, but I think we got the wording wrong. That would rule out .apple (a generic word intended to reference the computer company), but would not rule out .greenberg, the TLD that I plan to apply for my for-profit consulting company (it is not a generic word which is the key criteria for rejection as currently worded). Would also let in .ibm, .sanyo….

Note that the reference to my applying for a TLD is a joke, but the problem is not. I haven't had the time to try to come up with specific wording to remedy this but will try.

------------------

71.b in talking about documentation to be submitted says:

Evidence of any previous project fund, especially if successfully completed;
I don't have a clue what previous projects this may be talking about. Does anyone else know what this means?

------------------

71.c Says:

Recommendations regarding the ability to form a sustainable operation
Does this mean "recommendations" in the sense of "letters of reference"?

------------------



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy