<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Exactly Alex,<br>
<br>
Lou<br>
<br>
On 2/24/2013 12:12 PM, Alex Gakuru wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL67KoDMsBOKx6zU+nXWvv1Up6viB=pSc4SN-BZiVMQFETD9DA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">But Avri,<br>
<br>
Let's take honey, for example. Someone registers the word to the
exclusion of everyone else in the domain name space. Surely honey
is harvested at many places around the world, therefore *all*
somewhere.honey equally deserve registration with whomever rushed
to grab the word. Else would mean advocating for English to be now
considered as a proprietary language.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Alex<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Avri
Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi,<br>
<br>
I disagree. I find no problems with closed generics, and
having been part of the discussions that developed the
policies know that they were just assumed to be a fact of
life. Not something to be concerned about.<br>
<br>
I see no clear words that say a Registry can't use all of the
names for its own purposes. not sure what uyou mean by 'own'.<br>
<br>
Yes, they need to treat all registrars equally, but that can
be done, as long as other registrars are willing to provide
registrations for cost without any outside marketing and for
the sales or without the opportunity of selling of extra
services. The rules say noting about having to give
registrars a deal they like, only that all registrars must get
the same deal.<br>
<br>
I tend to think that we are not going to achieve a NCSG wide
position on this one.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
<br>
> 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>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> 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!<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> Alain<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:10 AM, William Drake
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>> 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>.)<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> Bill<br>
>><br>
>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Kathy Kleiman <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> 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. 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. (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).<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.
Non-discrimination and Equal Access are part of our
domain name DNA. (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 no
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>)<br>
>>><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 :-).<br>
>>><br>
>>> I look forward to our discussion, and happy
to provide links letters and public comment forums.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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>
>>>> Kathy,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 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?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Ed<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Kathy
Kleiman <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>> Quote from Jeff Neuman (VP Neustar) in
Amsterdam last week:<br>
>>>> Nearly all of those applying for Closed
gTLDs would fail to qualify based on his reading of the
Code of Conduct.<br>
>>>><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>
>>>>> 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."<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [<br>
>>>>>> mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
>>>>>> ] On Behalf<br>
>>>>>> Of William Drake<br>
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013
1:18 PM<br>
>>>>>> To:<br>
>>>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss]
new-gtld-committee-not-sure-how-to-handle-<br>
>>>>>> closed-generic-applications<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> surprise!<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <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><br>
>>>>>> -<br>
>>>>>>
sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA<br>
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.ceci.ca"
target="_blank">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
>> 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><br>
>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership
Foundation, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gkpfoundation.org" target="_blank">www.gkpfoundation.org</a><br>
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.chasquinet.org"
target="_blank">www.chasquinet.org</a><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>
>><br>
>><br>
>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ<br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE<br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>