Closed Generics: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Closed Generics''' are exclusive [[gTLD]]s.<ref name="subpro">[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures], February 2, 2021 (PDF)</ref> | '''Closed Generics''' are exclusive [[gTLD]]s.<ref name="subpro">[https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-report-newgtld-subsequent-procedures-pdp-02feb21-en.pdf Final Report - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures], February 2, 2021 (PDF)</ref> [[ICANN]] has no explicit policy on closed generic TLDs. | ||
==History== | ==History== | ||
* In the 2012 [[New gTLD Program]], no closed generics were delegated. | * In the 2012 [[New gTLD Program]], no closed generics were delegated. | ||
* In 2015, the [[Board Committee|Board’s New gTLD Program Committee]] (NGPC) resolved that the registry operators of a generic string are prohibited from imposing eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that would limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s affiliates.<ref>[https://gac.icann.org/advice/correspondence/incoming/20220310/board-facilitated-process-framing-paper-for-gac-gnso-dialogue-on-closed-generics Board Facilitated Process: Framing Paper for GAC-GNSO Dialogue on Closed Generics, GAC Communications, ICANN]</ref> | |||
* On February 2, 2021, the Working Group for the [[SUBPRO|New gTLD Subsequent Procedures]] [[PDP]] submitted its final report, explaining it was unable to come to an agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs. The Working Group noted: | * On February 2, 2021, the Working Group for the [[SUBPRO|New gTLD Subsequent Procedures]] [[PDP]] submitted its final report, explaining it was unable to come to an agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs. The Working Group noted: | ||
<blockquote>The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to [allow applicants to] either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.<br /> | <blockquote>The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to [allow applicants to] either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.<br /> | ||