[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Input to the Initial Report SubPro

[Rafik Dammak]

Thanks all for the comment
the deadline for submission s the 26th Sept and not clear we can get some
extension. I am still checking on that front.
as the topic is contentious, one way is to take it out from the draft and
comment separately having a proper discussion within NCSG, that is not a
perfect option but at least to ensure that we cover the other areas of the
public comment where there is no disagreement.
the comment still needs to be tidied up and finalized.

Best,

Rafik
Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 12:44, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
écrit :

> A lot of good work has gone into this comment, so thank you to those
> involved in drafting it. However I think it is not yet ready for
> submission. In the comments there have been some serious issues raised
> which I think need a response. I agree that there should be consistency in
> our comments, so if the position being taken today is different to the
> position that the NCSG has taken in the past, we need to talk about what
> has changed and why.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> On 23 Sep 2018, at 17:34, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> I had a look at the document. I abstain from approving it and here are my
> reasons:
>
> While I believe in free market, innovation and everything else that Robin
> and others claim should be in registries business model and they think
> closed registries can bring that about and I believe that top level domain
> names are property after allocation, I think having closed generics and
> restricted brand registries by default can lead to the politicization of
> the domain space even further. I don't even agree with having criteria set
> by ICANN for community TLDs.  I believe it might have made sense to support
> closed generics then, but the result is clear. We now have a much stronger
> GAC to deal with in Geo names, we have public interest related to each and
> every topic we discuss. And saying not to conflate trade mark with closed
> generic without providing a reason how they are different (I have read
> emails, transcripts etc) does not make sense to me.
>
> I support not allowing closed generics but allowing any other business
> model in registries in favor of not politicizing the domain space. It might
> be too late. but that is my opinion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> this is a reminder about the subsequent procedures comment review
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> Le mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 10:23, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> the draft was shared in NCSG list for review. asking PC members to go
>>> through the comment.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
>>> Date: mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 09:57
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Input to the Initial Report SubPro
>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Please find the initial draft of the NCSG Input to the Initial Report
>>> on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
>>> (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4).
>>>
>>> Elsa and I are still working on this document
>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxCa4cn-NEiS_tea-jUP02DSG6IEzf_O4_MBPLUtxZs/edit>
>>> so its not yet finalized but considered the importance of the subject and
>>> the upcoming deadline for submission (sep 26th) we thought we should this
>>> share this with the NCSG list soon.
>>>
>>> We will be finalizing this comment during the week and your input is
>>> very much welcome.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Bruna and Elsa
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180925/b6f40fa8/attachment.htm>