Buenos días! Les reenvio este correo de la lista de ALAC, que tiene información importante. Abajo encontrarán información sobre: 1.Closed Generic" gTLD En la úlitma llamada de ALAC, Evan presento una declaración sobre este tema, presentando 2 posibilidades: a favor y en contra. Este es el link al statement: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847 <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40927847> Se que Evan esta en esta lista, y le pediría por favor que explique a la región sobre este tema, para que podamos votar con conocimiento cuando llegue el momento. 2. Invitación a una llamada organizada por RySG y NTAG el lunes 4 de Marzo, 1500 UTC. Se discutirá sobre las ultimas modificaciones introducidas al manual del aplicante del new gTLD. (< http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-cha...

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-cha... ). The RySG's full public comments are available here:

(< http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html)

*Adobe Connect Room* Meeting Information Name: RySG Summary: RySG URL: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/rysg/ Language: English Access: Anyone who has the URL for the meeting may enter the room Saludos, Natalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: 2013/2/28 Subject: ALAC Digest, Vol 55, Issue 17 To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Send ALAC mailing list submissions to alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to alac-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at alac-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ALAC digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Closed generic statement (Carlton Samuels) 2. Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes (Alan Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:50:56 -0500 From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Closed generic statement To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID: <CAOZQb9QApaqWu8ALe-9rgYzSgPrTJJnhs8Ps2dHG77eg40KYDg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The fundamental cannot be successfully refuted. So let's look at the other claim: the public interest is subverted. The statement itself does a good enough job to undermine that claim and shows up the internal inconsistency of the logic utilised. I am asserting the evidence that supports this declaration that closed generics are inimical to the public interest is well, weak, at best. All we can say for sure is that it tends to subvert the existing business model. And the evidence is right there in the statement! The first paragraph goes "On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide public benefit". Then that is undermined by Paragraph 2: "We can foresee innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites." This is the problem with the statement......"We can forseee". "Forsee"! It is projecting - projecting - an outcome with evidence now available, slim as that is that mortally wounds the declaration of the fist paragraph. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca

wrote:

At Tuesday's ALAC meeting, Evan presented a statement on closed generic word domains that gave the two opposing positions that had been expressed by various ALAC and At-Large people. I suggested that the ALAC not vote for or against that statement, but each member say with side they supported. As the discussion evolved, there was some discomfort about simply giving a tally of the two sides, and moreover, that it ignored a third option that allowed some parts of both sides to be supported. I volunteered to work with Evan to create a new version.

I did create such a 3rd "in between" option. As we were reviewing it, and partially guided by a message from Roberto Gaetano, Evan suggested that this in-between option, with some enhancements, could be a single statement that most or all of the ALAC could support.

What you see here is an evolution of that statement. Thanks to Olivier and Rinalia who identified a number of problems with earlier versions.

The comment period closes on March 7th, so a vote will need to be completed by March 6th. I believe that Olivier would like to start a vote relatively quickly, so if you have any problems with what you see here, please speak up quickly.

This new statement is also posted on the wiki - https://community.icann.org/x/Z4JwAg.

Alan

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

On the whole, the ALAC does not believe that closed generics provide public benefit and would prefer that TLDs -- especially for strings representing categories -- were not allocated in a way that would lock out broad access to sub-domains. Some members of At-Large believe, on principle, that all closed generics are harmful to the public good. Others believe that, while not necessarily being beneficial to end users, closed gTLDs should be allowed as simply being consistent with existing practise for lower-level domains.

However, in developing this response to the Board's request, the ALAC found the issue to be far more nuanced than the above hard positions would suggest. We can foresee innovative business models that might allow a closed TLD to be in the public interest. An example might be a registry that makes 2nd level names available at no cost to anyone, but retains legal control over them. This is similar to the model used by Facebook and many blog hosting sites. Allowance should be made for applicants interested in widespread sub-domain distribution that do not require domain-name sales as a source of revenue, or for other forms of sub-domain allocation.

Whether a generic-word string is used with its generic meaning or in some other context may also be relevant. The fictitious but famous computer manufacturer, Orange Computers Inc. using the TLD ".orange" might be acceptable, while the same string used as a closed TLD by a California Orange Growers Cooperative (and not allowing access to orange producers from Florida or Mediterranean and South American countries) might well be considered unacceptable.

Allowing this nuanced approach would likely involve a case by case review of how a TLD will be used and how its sub-domains will be allocated. Moreover, it would require a contractual commitment to not change that model once the TLD is delegated.

In summary, the ALAC believes that completely uncontrolled use of generic words as TLDs is not something that ICANN should be supporting. However, some instances of generic word TLDs could be both reasonable and have very strong benefits of just the sort that ICANN was seeking when the TLD space was opened. Such uses should not be excluded.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)

------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:58:56 -0500 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes To: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID: <d3fc3fb3-6a43-4e46-9a61-8572413a7557@EXHUB2010-1.campus.MCGILL.CA> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:39:02 -0500 Subject: [council] RySG Invitation to Community Consultation Teleconference on Monday, March 4 -- Discuss ICANN's Proposed Registry Agreement Changes

Dear Councilors,

I wanted to personally invite each of you as well as members from your SGs and Constituencies to a call being hosted by the RySG and the NTAG on Monday, March 4th. We look forward to this open consultation with the community.

**** RySG/NTAG Community-Wide Consultation on the New gTLD Agreement Modifications*****

The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and its New gTLD Applicant Group (NTAG) invite your participation in a community-wide consultation teleconference on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 UTC.

On 5 February 2013, nearly nine months after new gTLD applicants spent hundreds of millions of dollars in anticipation of the new introduction of new gTLDs, ICANN proposed a series of last-minute material changes to the registry agreement contained in the Final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. Included within these changes are a brand new process for making additional Public Interest Commitments (PICs), a unilateral right for ICANN to amend the registry agreement, the requirement to use only registrars that have executed the yet-to-be-completed 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and a host of other changes summarized in a 21-page summary of changes document. (< http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-cha...

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-specs-summary-cha... ).

The RySG believes that the latest proposed version of the Final Agreement contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it should be withdrawn in its entirety and the previously agreed-to version in the Applicant Guidebook should be used. We oppose certain proposed amendments, and believe that other provisions need further thought and refinement. We are equally concerned about the timeline ICANN has imposed on the community's consideration of these proposals, and the mechanism by which ICANN proposes to adopt and implement the changes.

The issues at stake in the short and long term deserve sufficient time and consideration to ensure that new gTLDs are offered in a secure and stable manner and are successful in fostering innovation via sound business models that support the needs of all stakeholders in ways that have been developed via the bottom-up, multi-stakeholder

process.

The RySG's full public comments are available here: (<

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-05feb13/msg00019.html)

ICANN has posted the proposed changes for public comment which ends on February 26, 2013, with a reply period that closes on March 20, 2013. In order to facilitate the receipt of public input in this short amount of time, the RySG will host this open community-wide consultation to discuss the proposed agreement modifications. The meeting will be held on Monday, March 4, 2013 at 1500 [UTC]. We cordially invite applicants, members of the community, the ICANN Board and the ICANN staff to attend this consultation.

Please open the attachment to find the Adobe connect link and teleconference details.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / <mailto:jeff.neuman@neustar.biz>jeff.neuman@neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz