Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 9 Apr 2014 16:58:32 +0200 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Thanks McTim,
Substantively, I agree with you and I sympathise with the registries that have .brand applications. On the other hand, I am concerned with gTLD policy being developed by the ICANN board purely from a process perspective. I would argue on that point out of principle. The idea of the ICANN board developing policy is not one that I relish.
Thanks again.
Amr
On Apr 9, 2014, at 4:49 PM, McTim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The board's resolution on specification 13 of the new gTLD registry
>> agreement is going to be a discussion topic on tomorrow's irregularly
>> scheduled GNSO council call. This resolution is specific to .Brand
>> registries, a model that was (as far as I can tell) not taken into
>> consideration back in 2007 when the GNSO WG on Introduction of new gTLDs
>> concluded its work.
>>
>> The ICANN board has delayed implementation of this resolution for 45 days
>> pending feedback from the GNSO Council on whether the council believes this
>> resolution conflicts with policies developed in the GNSO, or not.
>> Personally, I'm somewhat divided on whether I have substantive difficulties
>> with this resolution or not and am keen to hear others thoughts (from both
>> in and out of NCSG).
>
> I have no objection to it. It seems incredible to me that a .Brand
> MUST use Registrars at all!
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
|
|
|