Main Page: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
'''[[PIC|Public Interest Commitments]]''' (or PICs) is a term and creation directly from [[ICANN]], first suggested on February 5th, 2013, as related to [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD applicants]] and the [[Registry Agreement]] they are to sign. They were part of a revised new registry agreement, which has been widely maligned, that ICANN opened for public comments. PICs are voluntary amendments that applicants can create, sign, and undertake along with the general registry agreement in order to hold their registry operations to certain standards. They seem to originally have been developed as a way to allow applicants to appease [[GAC]] members that may be concerned about how their application stands as is, or how ICANN will be able to ensure a potential registry remains compliant with its aspirations and mandate as it defined in its summary of its proposed operations in the TLD application. As is, prior to PICs, there was no clear way of defining operating procedures when moving from the long form essays in the TLD application to the Registry Agreement..[[PIC|Read more on PICs]] | '''[[PIC|Public Interest Commitments]]''' (or PICs) is a term and creation directly from [[ICANN]], first suggested on February 5th, 2013, as related to [[New gTLD Program|new gTLD applicants]] and the [[Registry Agreement]] they are to sign. They were part of a revised new registry agreement, which has been widely maligned, that ICANN opened for public comments. PICs are voluntary amendments that applicants can create, sign, and undertake along with the general registry agreement in order to hold their registry operations to certain standards. They seem to originally have been developed as a way to allow applicants to appease [[GAC]] members that may be concerned about how their application stands as is, or how ICANN will be able to ensure a potential registry remains compliant with its aspirations and mandate as it defined in its summary of its proposed operations in the TLD application. As is, prior to PICs, there was no clear way of defining operating procedures when moving from the long form essays in the TLD application to the Registry Agreement..[[PIC|Read more on PICs]] | ||
<center><big> | <center><big>''[[PIC#PICs Submitted|See List with Download Links for PICs submitted]]''</big></center> | ||
Revision as of 16:31, 7 March 2013
|
Hot Topics: Closed gTLDs & PICs
After ICANN published information on its 1,930 applications it was immediately noted that some companies had applied for a number of generic terms relevant to their business, writing in their applications that they intended to be the sole registrant for the TLD. There was no Brand TLD distinction in this round, though there were guesses that ICANN would create rules for such TLDs in any future round. Thus, the closed generic terms violated no rules as developed through the GNSO process and as included in the Applicant Guidebook. Some noted that this was in fact an intentional byproduct of the program that had been considered while others disagreed. The largest applicant for closed gTLDs is Amazon, and many worried that their applications to control a large number of generic terms would result in them circumnavigating traditional navigation for shopping online and give them an unfair competitive advantage. Another notable applicants with multiple applications for closed generic terms include L'Oréal and Google. In late 2012, Amazon and other companies that applied for closed-generic strings received a GAC Early Warning from GAC Chair, Heather Dryden...Full Summary of Closed gTLDs
|
| |
|
Information on ALL new gTLDs!
|
|
Resources
|