<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Tx so much Alain, for your response,
and your examples. It all seems to make sense when we see the
examples...<br>
<br>
To those who asked about changing the rules, for many of us,
barring Closed Generics *is not changing the rules,* but enforcing
them. <br>
<br>
I do too much work in the regulatory field to believe in
regulation by surprise. when I first saw the dozens and dozens of
Closed Generics (it's really appalling), I went back to the words
of the Applicant Guidebook, which includes the model Registry
Agreement (the agreement all new gTLD registries will be asked to
sign, and with limited exceptions, expected to sign). <br>
<br>
The words clearly, clearly say that a Registry cannot own all of
its domain names -- basically, a registry must operate as a
traditional registry -- unless it asks for an exception. That's
embedded in 2.9 of the Registry Agreement, and its Registry Code
of Conduct (called Specification (or exhibit) 9). <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANgs+StD4nJq=pRUZva+jGYB1m_M7UawLDqoC+DZkC4UfDS9CQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I personnally lean heavily in favor of Kathy's position. It
seems quite reasonable to me for IBM, Accenture, Suzuki or Aga
Khan Foundation (AKDN for AK Development Network) and many
others to use their closed gTLD for internal purposes but pure
generic words belong to everybody, period. So even
AFAMILYCOMPANY applied for by Johnson Shareholdings Inc would
affect not only the use of "family" by all but also discriminate
against many others such as perhaps the millions of family-owned
companies!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill, I think the "Closed Generics" theme is big enough that
it warrants an NCSG-wide approach in Bali with distinctive NCUC
and NPOC events or sessions on different themes our respective
Program Teams are probably working on right now.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Alain</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM,
William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Hi
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So there's clearly a diversity of views on this
issue among reasonable people. This was also evident
at the IGF meeting in Baku, where we spent some time
on it in the context of a wider discussion of new
gTLDs in the Critical Internet Resources main session
(I co-moderatated, Milton spoke to the issue, as did
Anriette Esterhuysen from NCUC member APC, the
Brazilian ambassador, others... <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand"
target="_blank">http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand</a>/.)
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For this year's IGF in Bali, Alain and I discussed
the possibility of proposing a joint NPOC/NCUC Open
Forum session, and in addition the two constituencies
could each organize their own workshops reflecting
their respective priorities and possibilities. In
this context, I'm wondering whether closed generics
might not be a good topic for a NCUC workshop. We
could easily get a solid MS panel together with
strongly diverse views that would probably be of
interest to the sort of broader, non-GNSO-insider
audiences IGFs attract. I can already think of a
number of developing country government, business,
technical and CS folks who'd likely be eager to
participate as speakers, and it's a nicely bounded
problem set that'd lend itself to focused
consideration of commercial and noncommercial
arguments etc.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After we get past the WSIS+10 and IGF meetings in
Paris I may pitch the Program Team a formal proposal
on this. If anyone would like to conspire, let me
know.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com"
target="_blank">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Hi Edward and All,<br>
I've been meaning to write for some time
about Closed Generics. Since 1996, I've
been fighting the abuse of generic words.
The first huge domain name dispute battles
took place over generic words - that
trademark owners felt they could use their
trademarks (which is, of course, a limited
right to use a term for a specific
category of goods and services) to stop
ordinary people, organizations and
entrepreneurs from using ordinary words in
ordinary ways. We led a huge fight with
Network Solutions, and then at the dawn of
ICANN, to draft Domain Name Dispute Rules
that protected generic words used in
generic ways as part of the public domain
-- as belonging to us all!<br>
<br>
So when I see so many applicants for
"Closed Generic" New gTLDs -- using a
generic word in a generic way and
completely monopolizing it by *not*
allowing your competitors to use it too, I
am shocked: .APP, .BOOK, .CLOUD, .DRIVE,
.MAP, .MOVIE, .NEWS, .SEARCH, .SHOP.
.STORE, .BLOG, .ANTIVIRUS, .INSURANCE,
.HAIR, .MAKEUP, .BABY -- These are generic
words being used in generic ways
(according to their applications) for the
sole purpose of monopolizing the common
term of an industry or business -- and
keeping its competitors out. <br>
<br>
There is no way that L'Oréal could get
trademarks on .SKIN, .SALON, .MAKEUP and
.HAIR, as these words are part of the
public domain name and available to All
their competitors to use -- their
trademarks are on MAYBELLINE, REDKIN,
L'Oréal, and the share the generics as
common descriptive terms. So it is against
every public interest bone in my body to
allow generic words used in generic ways
to be monopolized by only one business or
industry player. <br>
<br>
But is it against the rules? I went back
to my work as Director of Policy for .ORG,
as I was with .ORG through the end of the
Applicant Guidebook work. <span
style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">I
served on the Vertical Integration
Working Group in a very active way, as
well as the Registries group that
reviewed every line of the "Base
Registry Agreement" (the model contract
for all new gTLDs). We had agreed that,
in general, the base model of a Registry
is "open" -- that Registries must work
with ICANN-Accredited Registrars
worldwide. Why? To reach Registrants
worldwide -- to offer them domain names
in their own languages, currencies and
customs. <i>(For example, NII
Quaynor, a founder of NCUC and early
Board member, is now one of the few
Registrars in Africa, and equal access
of his Registrants to domain names, on
a nondiscriminatory basis, has always
been important to our system). </i></span>
<br>
<br>
So no, I found that we had NOT agreed to
Closed Generics. In fact, the base model
of the New gTLD Registries was meant to be
"open" -- and ICANN incorporated this
"Open gTLD" model into its Base Registry
Agreement (in the Applicant Guidebook).
Section 2.9a and the Registry Code of
Conduct. No Registry may favor a
particular Registrar -- but provide Equal
Access to its Registry Services and Data.
Why? To be fair to Registrants! It's
nowhere written that Verisign can't limit
.COM domain names only to the NY Stock
Exchange companies, or that .ORG can't
limit .ORG registrations to only US
organizations, but everyone knows if they
did that, they would lose their
accreditation with ICANN. <i>Non-discrimination
and Equal Access are part of our domain
name DNA. </i>(See "Base Agreement
& Specifications", Specification 9, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"
target="_blank">http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</a>).
<br>
<br>
The initial Registry Code of Conduct had <u>no</u>
exceptions. Then the Commercial Guys got
upset-- why should a Dot-Brand TLD, e.g.
.IBM, have to go through registrars to
register domain names, and why should they
have to register names to the public
anyway? (Arguments also made in the
Vertical Integration WG.) Special
privileges for very limited use New TLDs -
let IBM keep its domain names for its
employees, franchisees, etc. And frankly,
most of us agreed. So the next version of
the Registry Code of Conduct came out with
a narrow exception:<br>
<br>
==> "6. Registry Operator may
request an exemption to this Code of
Conduct, and such exemption may be
granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable
discretion, if Registry Operator
demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable
satisfaction that (i) all domain name
registrations in the TLD are registered
to, and maintained by, Registry Operator
for its own exclusive use, (ii) Registry
Operator does not sell, distribute or
transfer control or use of any
registrations in the TLD to any third
party that is not an Affiliate of Registry
Operator, and (iii) application of this
Code of Conduct to the TLD is not
necessary to protect the public
interest." <br>
<br>
It had a comment that made its intent very
clear:<br>
===> [*Note: This draft Section 6
of the Registry Operator Code of Conduct
has been added in response to comments
received that suggested that the Code was
not necessary for registries in which a
single registrant uses the TLD solely for
its own operations and does not sell
registrations to third parties (e.g. a
dot-BRAND)]
(<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-15apr11-en.pdf"
target="_blank">http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-15apr11-en.pdf</a><small>)<br>
</small><br>
And that's where we left it. Of course,
some people in the Vertical Integration WG
wanted much more, and some of them are on
this list. And some wanted much less- that
all gTLDs be open. The compromise was to
allow dot-BRANDs to be closed, but
certainly not any string any applicant
wanted for any reasons. Generic words used
in generic ways belong to everyone in the
industry or business :-). <small><br>
<br>
</small>I look forward to our discussion,
and happy to provide links letters and
public comment forums.<br>
<small><br>
</small>All the best,<br>
Kathy<br>
p.s. Quick additional note on "restricted
TLDs." In case anyone is wondering,
"restricted TLDs" are generally OK among
those deeply concerned about Closed
Generics because restricting .BANK to real
banks or .LAWYER to lawyers with actual
credentials seems consistent with
non-discrimination and equal access
provisions -- provided the criteria and
fairly and globally applied... <br>
<br>
<br>
Edward Morris wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">Kathy,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am sympathetic to your position. My
concern is that any change now to the
program will embroil ICANN in mass
litigation that will paralyze the
organization for a considerable period
going forward. We briefly spoke in Los
Angeles about some recent legal hires by
Amazon: some pretty impressive hires.
Can you convince me that my concerns are
invalid? Might not a better approach at
this point be to pressure the applicants
themselves to open up the generic
domains, to make it socially
unacceptable for large companies to
operate closed Tlds?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 6,
2013 at 8:26 PM, Kathy Kleiman <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com"
target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>Quote from Jeff Neuman (VP
Neustar) in Amsterdam last week:<br>
<i><b>Nearly all of those
applying for Closed gTLDs
would fail to qualify based
on his reading of the Code
of Conduct. </b></i><i><b><br>
</b></i><br>
Article show concern around the
world for TLDs which are generic
strings/words of an entire
industry or business (DOCS,
BOOK, SEARCH, ANTIVIRUS,
WATCHES) being dominated and
controlled by a single
industry/business (and only one
of many competitors). that's
being a registry to monoplize a
word, not to offer registry
services.<br>
<br>
- The Hindu: Beauty lies in
the ‘domain’ of the highest
bidder (Op-ed piece by Parminder
Jeet Singh, Executive Director,
IT for Change, in special
consultative status with the
United Nations Economic and
Social Council (IGF attendee)),
12/24/2012, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece"
target="_blank">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece</a>
<br>
<br>
- Forbes: The Battle For The
Cloud: Amazon Proposes 'Closed'
Top-Level .CLOUD Domain,
11/6/2012, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/11/06/the-battle-for-the-cloud-amazon-proposes-closed-top-level-cloud-domain/?partner=yahootix"
target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2012/11/06/the-battle-for-the-cloud-amazon-proposes-closed-top-level-cloud-domain/?partner=yahootix</a>
<br>
<br>
- Techworld: Problems arise
where one entity is seeking
exclusive use of strings with
broad applicability, 11/21/2012,
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/"
target="_blank">http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/</a><br>
<br>
I am deeply, deeply concerned! <br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>A quote from Karen Lentz (ICANN legal staff): "Under the current rules, there's nothing that would prevent the use of closed generics, which is focused on the issue of who can register a name."
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>] On Behalf
Of William Drake
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:18 PM
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] new-gtld-committee-not-sure-how-to-handle-
closed-generic-applications
surprise!
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not" target="_blank">http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not</a>-
sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
<div>Member, Board of Directors, CECI, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/"
target="_blank">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
<div>Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca" target="_blank">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a></div>
<div>Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gkpfoundation.org" target="_blank">www.gkpfoundation.org</a></div>
<div>NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, <font
color="#0a246a" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chasquinet.org" target="_blank">www.chasquinet.org</a></font><br>
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://npoc.org/" target="_blank">http://npoc.org/</a><br>
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824<br>
Skype: alain.berranger<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ</div>
<div>Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif
du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le
présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou
l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est
strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de
le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si
le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous
a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur
le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de
celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE</div>
<div>This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for
the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that,
should this message be read by anyone other than the
addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible
for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly
prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce
the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the
addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete
this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your
cooperation.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
</pre>
</body>
</html>