<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Let's go back to Postal,<br>
<br>
A specific identity at a specific location; If someone copy writes
either of the two, a specific identity is forbidden delivery. The
specific identity may not be unique in name. The specific
location, however must be unique. Postal did not copy write any
of the words used for delivery. The specific identity would be
resolved at the specific address. The final resolution for deliver
is not a public authority but a private one. Please, let us not
copy write the public domain.<br>
<br>
just my thoughts<br>
<br>
Lou <br>
<br>
On 9/6/2012 2:04 PM, Nicolas Adam wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5048E5C1.7060808@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
I disagree about the superiority of .book over .book<b>s</b> (and
the many other close modification such as .bookish, .oldbook,
.newbook, .goodbook, .readbooks, .buybooks, [brand]books, etc.,
etc.) .libram, ., .tales, .grimoire, .etc .<br>
<br>
"Google" became a household name, after all. I don't even think
that the one that has .book has an advantage over the one that has
.thatthingywithpagesnotsomuchfromthepast.<br>
<br>
In fact, i'd take my chance marketing the latter. <br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/09/2012 1:17 PM, David Cake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4F47017D-DECD-4AC9-B860-5F9AEE5868F3@difference.com.au"
type="cite"><base href="x-msg://859/">I don't think it is a
trademark issue purely, nor do I think it is purely a free
expression issue.
<div>But from a public interest point of view, there are some
strings that we should consider carefully. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amazon don't have a trademark on book - and we would never
let them have one. So why should we grant them any exclusive
rights on .book, to be used only for their own branded
product? And I disagree with Milton on this - the space is
vast, yes, but not all strings are equal, and there are no
synonyms for book of equal quality. </div>
<div>Yes, it isn't a monopoly, but it is a significant
competitive advantage that I don't think we should be selling
exclusive rights to.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Restricted registration (not the same as closed) may well
be in the public interest in some cases. I think the case for
restricting .bank to banks is reasonable, even if we use the
word bank for some other purposes (food bank, seed bank, etc).
And restricting .ngo to NGOs etc. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm OK with .brands having closed registration - the logic
is essentially the original, public interest, case for
trademarks, that it protects consumer interests to prevent
attempts to claim false association. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sure, there are business agendas at play here. And much as
I also am a member of the Michele Neylon fan club, I
acknowledge that he (as a registrar) has an interest in
keeping as many of them as open as possible. But I also think
there are some cases where I'd much rather see a registrant
that intends open registration succeed, and those where a
closed use would imply trying to 'capture' a generic, not
trademarkable, term are particularly problematic (ie .book,
.app, .music, etc). Most of which are contested, with at least
some major bidders planning on open (or restricted but not
closed) registration. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On 07/09/2012, at 12:40 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family:
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align:
-webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">
<div bgcolor="white" link="blue" vlink="purple"
lang="EN-US">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; ">
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Kathy<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">I don't agree with Michele's
letter and don't see that there are actually
free expression issues here. Although it is good
that you circulated this letter, to keep us
informed, we have already started a dialogue
about this issue in connection with the NCUC
statement regarding human rights issues in new
gTLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">As we all know, DNS strings
must be exclusively registered to someone.
Whoever that person/organization is should be
able to determine the level of "closedness" or
"openness" of the registrations under it. This
is true at the top level, second level, third
level, whatever. Just as free expression does
not mean that the IGP website (<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetgovernance.org"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">internetgovernance.org</a>) has
to allow anyone and everyone to publish their
opinion, or register a domain at the third level
under it, so ownership of a TLD does not
obligate anyone to open its registrations. If
they want to, fine. If they don't, it's their
right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">The DNS space is vast. For
any given string, there are always more or less
good substitutes. Giving someone .cloud does not
give anyone a monopoly over cloud services,
clouds in the air, use of the word cloud in
other contexts, cloud-like brands, cloud images,
or…cloudy thinking. The idea that these closed
business models create a monopoly on anything is
just wrong. The idea that any generic term must
be "open" means something very inimical to free
expression: it means that ICANN would have to
dictate the business models and procedures of
whoever registered a given string. It would also
mean that ICANN would have to dictate what was a
generic word and what was not, because it is not
always obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">Valuable domains will be
created not by the word or string itself, but by
the investment and value that go into its
operation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">I don’t see how we can say
that end users - and noncommercial users
specifically - are inherently better off if the
entity that wins .MUSIC allows open registration
or creates a controlled name space in which the
second-level is specific artists, or restricts
it to internal users, or some other business
model. Either way might please users, either way
might not work out. Take any word in any
language of your choice: let's say, CHOICE as an
example. Can you really contend that free
expression is better served if .CHOICE _<i>must</i>_
allow anyone and everyone to register under it?
What if it is acquired by Planned Parenthood and
they want to use it to promote their own views,
and thus limit how the name space is used?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">You know as well as I do,
Kathy, that generic terms have been and will
continue to be registered at the second level (<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://books.com"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">books.com</a>,<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://cloud.com"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">cloud.com</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>etc.) In
a world where .com constituted over half of the
domain name space, those generic terms were
"closed" and probably more economically
significant than registering a new TLD in a
world of 1000 new TLDs will be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">What is really going on
here? I believe that these so-called open v
closed and "free expression" concerns are just a
cloak for certain business interests to try to
gain a leg up on the competition for valuable
names. Applicants with business models oriented
around large numbers of individual registrations
(e.g., registrars such as Mr. Neylon) are trying
to use the regulatory process ex post - re-write
the rules in mid-stream - to gain an advantage
over applicants with business models that
involve more controlled name spaces. I refuse to
play along.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); ">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="border-top-style: none;
border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style:
none; border-width: initial; border-color:
initial; border-left-style: solid;
border-left-color: blue; border-left-width: 1.5pt;
padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in;
padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 4pt; ">
<div>
<div style="border-right-style: none;
border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style:
none; border-width: initial; border-color:
initial; border-top-style: solid;
border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223);
border-top-width: 1pt; padding-top: 3pt;
padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in;
padding-left: 0in; ">
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right:
0in; margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom:
0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman', serif; color: black; "><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Tahoma, sans-serif; color: windowtext; ">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Tahoma, sans-serif; color: windowtext; "><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>NCSG-Discuss
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On
Behalf Of<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Kathy
Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Wednesday,
September 05, 2012 3:18 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>[NCSG-Discuss]
Closed New gTLDs - "Closed Gardens"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; "><o:p> </o:p></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; color: black; ">Hi All,<br>
I would like to share with you a letter being
circulated by Michele Neylon, the wonderful
Blacknight registrar (and the only registrar in
Ireland). It deals with new gTLDs that are
"closed gardens" -- generic words that some
companies have applied for as new gTLDs and will
keep "closed" -- not open for general
second-level domain name registration. These
include some applicants for .BLOG and .CLOUD,
among many others.<br>
<br>
It's a powerful letter with strong free
speech/freedom of expression arguments. Concerns
are shared by registries, registrars and
registrants -- and Michele is looking for
Signatories.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
Please take a moment to look at the letter, and
let Michele know if you can sign on (name,
organization). Michele is cc'ed on this email,
and can be reached at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:michele@blacknight.ie"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">michele@blacknight.ie</a><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
-----<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Here's the full version with current signatories
:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZUNlookOWyaSW8lXfi_37zVFsVk9xcxncvmE0uwPEFY/edit</a>Here
are two quotes from the<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman', serif; color: black; "><br>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif;
">Here are two quotes from the letter:<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span
style="font-size: 11.5pt; font-family:
Helvetica, sans-serif; "><br>
"Based on our collective industry experience,
we are of the opinion that the underlying
intention of Section 6 was to allow for the
operation of closed gTLDs only under very
defined circumstances. </span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; "><br>
</span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;
font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; ">Specifically,
that closed gTLDs should be reserved for only
those strings in which the applicant possesses
established (i.e., legally recognized)
intellectual property rights, basically brand
names. We believe that this interpretation of
Section 6 is inherently logical especially in
view of the discussions that preceded the
opening of gTLDs -- which focused, in very
large part, on expanding choices and
opportunities as well as promoting innovation,
for Internet consumers worldwide."</span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; "><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;
font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; ">"Further,
generic words used in a generic way belong to
all people. It is inherently in the public
interest to allow access to generic new gTLDs
to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g.,
.BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD. Allowing everyone to
register and use second level domain names of
these powerful, generic TLDs is exactly what
we envisioned the New gTLD Program would do.
In contrast, to allow individual Registry
Operators to segregate and close-off common
words for which they do not possess
intellectual property rights in effect allows
them to circumvent nation-states’ entrenched
legal processes for obtaining legitimate and
recognized trademark protections."</span><span
style="font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; "><br>
</span>----<br>
Best,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-right: 0in;
margin-left: 0in; font-size: 12pt; font-family:
'Times New Roman', serif; color: black; ">Kathy
Kleiman<br>
Internet Counsel, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth<br>
Co-Founder, NCUC</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>