<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Milton,<br>
<br>
I have a problem with generic words being owned by some individual
or etc.. For example, hypothetically, suppose that in the phone
book, the first John Smith was the only one in the world who could
be allowed to use John Smith in any phone book and by extension in
any other listing of phone numbers. How many John Smiths would be
prohibited from having the equal right to list their own given
name in possibly any way? If we are still intent on using
generics, we would need some kind of delimiter to differentiate
between others who should have the right to use the common
language they know and understand. In this case, only one
specific delimiter would need be unique. That delimiter should be
the only thing owned to identify the specific individual. With
the postal system, for instance, the address. Some people own an
address. Often the address may be rented or least. But the
complete address is the only unique entity involved and not each
of the generic words of which it is composed. The ownership of
words will certainly lead to commercial oppression of individuals
all over the world. Let us look to a wider picture of
circumstances of what we do lest we find a huge problem in the
future. Commercial interest's greatest wet dream is to have a
monopoly. Is that what we are willing to accept?<br>
<br>
Lou<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/6/2013 3:15 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD232D7D6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I stand ready to be educated by those
with different views.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">OK.
Here is a different view.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It
is not a free speech issue at all. It is a vertical
integration or business model issue, exclusively. Some
registries want to create a specific image or
environment inside a particular TLD. Those registries
are not trying to sell domain name registrations per se,
they are selling or doing other things with the domain,
perhaps even giving domains away to promote a service.
They might also use their authority to control
registrations to prevent speculators from grabbing all
the "good" names, or to impose a taxonomy on the second
level, or to prevent undesirable types from squatting or
tarnishing the overall image of the domain.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Other
registries want to maximize the number of registrations
under a TLD. In that case, it makes sense to be "open".
In other words, if you are a registrar and want to sell
hundreds of thousands or millions of domains to whoever
will buy them for whatever reason, then you want "open"
or FCFS TLDs.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Not
surprisingly, the real push for "open" and against
"closed" TLDs is coming from traditional registrars who
want all the potentially popular domains to be available
for them to exploit as registrars. The free speech and
competition policy claims are pure diversions.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Take
.BOOK for example. If someone wants to open that up for
anyone on a first-come, first-served basis, there are
advantages and disadvantages. Sure, I could register
networksandstates.book in an open domain, if I wanted
to. But someone else might register it before me, or
someone might register nonfiction.books (so there's that
"terrible" appropriation of a generic term again).
Wrose, 600 different link farms might appropriate other
generic terms (sex.books, good.books) and just pile pay
per click ads onto them, so that anyone using the domain
would never know whether a specific domain was useful or
just a commercial diversion.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
don't think it's ICANN's job to say that either one of
these business models is the right one. I think there is
an important place for both models, and the proper
decision maker to decide which one to use is the person
who risked about $1 million to get the domain and
operate it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
competition policy claims are especially laughable,
because unless you confuse the market for books with the
market for names under .book, it is obvious that
possession of the latter does not do anything to give
you monopoly control of the former.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Likewise,
I don't see the freedom issue here. In fact, freedom of
expression and property rights are mutually reinforcing
in this case. If I register a domain like .IGP and want
to use it to push a particular topic or point of view,
it's my right NOT to allow, say, advocates of
Scientology to register domains under IGP. If I have to
lend my domain to promotion of causes and ideas I don't
support, my freedom of association and expression rights
are being restricted. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Edward,
you have a domain under USC.EDU. USC is not obliged, on
free speech grounds, to allow me to register a name
under their domain. This is not a restriction of my
right of free speech so much as it is an extension of
USC's right of free association and free speech. There
are plenty of domains to accommodate diverse views.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Generic
words in the SLD space have been registered - and
restricted to what their owners want them to do - for
more than a decade. I don't see how TLD vs SLD changes
the issue in any relevant way. Would you contend that
your right to freedom of expression is restricted
because you can't register <foo>.book.com? If not,
why is it a restriction to not be allowed to register
<foo>.book? I think we would both probably agree
that if someone else registers book.com before me, then
I don't have any right to use the domain book.com. Why
is it any different for .book?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Remember,
new domains are NOT .com; i.e., they have no monopoly
power or lock in power on existing registrants. No one
has to use them or register in them.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>