<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Ultimately,<br>
<br>
The current DNS system was established to make human use easier as
compared to the actual IP4 or eventually IP6 machine addresses.
IP4 is more network specific and requires additional routing for
sub-nets. IP6 could possibly establish a unique address for every
machine. But IP6 presents even more confusion for human use.
Too, is a more human wordy system. A more equitable and efficient
system must evolve. We surely at this juncture, should not give
ownership of words to private individuals. Many people may have
many of the same words as attributes to their natural address. As
long as the complete address is capable of identifying the unique
recipient, there is no need for anyone to own the words
themselves. My last name is Smith. I often get mail routed to my
mail box with everything correct accept the name. The mailman
expects me to correct the error with "Not at this address" and
send it back. In the machine age, this should be automatic. It
would instantly send warning to the sender as invalid. We must
move to a better addressing scheme rather than panic and give away
our language to those who would charge us to use it. Our current
scheme is archaic and must be updated with the advances in society
not just band-aids.<br>
<br>
I am old and possibly obsolete myself, but I had great success
using common sense then, and it still works just perfect. Observe
the beasts faults and venerability before you just spit on it.
You'll probably just piss it off. <br>
<br>
Lou<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/25/2013 3:40 PM, Kristina Macaulay wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A281A20F-3C9F-4469-882A-D85EC6FC8F8B@mac.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Hi All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm noting 3 main points of concerns here.</div>
<div>Excluding McTim and Miltons objections to them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anyone got other angles to add, regarding concerns…which was
the point of "a letter together"?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warmly,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kristina </div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On 25 Feb 2013, at 20:25, Mark Leiser <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:markleiser@GMAIL.COM">markleiser@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"If
the gTLD is for closed generic use, then the gTLD will
only be used by an organisation for their purposes."</span><br>
<div><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">That
is very subjective and problematic in my opinion... </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">For
example, if I own .music and I start a band called "I
CAN SUCKS" - the gTLD used by the Company registering
.music has the purpose of giving bands a platform to
reach their fans. They do nothing other than sell to
authorized bands space on the web to market their
bands. They have a vested interest in their purpose
being to have space for any band that applies,
REGARDLESS of the band name-hence the censorship
concerns. </span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> </span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div>Sincerely, </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mark Leiser</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Mark
R. Leiser, Phd Student</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">School
of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">PGR
Room, Lord Hope Building</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">University
of Strathclyde</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">141
St James Road,</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Glasgow
G4 0LT</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Scotland </font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mobile: +447748689142</div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Email:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:markleiser@gmail.com"
target="_blank">markleiser@gmail.com</a> </font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Twitter:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://twitter.com/#%21/mleiser"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/#!/mleiser</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">LinkedIN:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro"
target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=189149411&trk=tab_pro</a> </font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">Google+:
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts"
target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/u/0/105289982691060086995/posts</a></font></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 8:06 PM,
Kristina Macaulay <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kristinamac@mac.com" target="_blank">kristinamac@mac.com</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 Milton,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I will attempt to respond how I see this as a
long-term issue.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you have a domain name, well that is not the
same to a gTLD. </div>
<div>The ownership of a gTLD is exclusive to the
terms of use of the gTLD.</div>
<div>If the gTLD is for closed generic use, then the
gTLD will only be used by an organisation for
their purposes. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
How you chose to use your domain name, is
subjective to that one domain, unless you are on
the reserved list, and have privileges of unique
usage. example "red cross".</div>
<div>However a gTLD, is a fixed definite in the
english language there will only be one .book. </div>
<div>It gives an exclusive right, as the reserved
list does to the word association with "red
cross". If you consider the arguments around who
has the right over the word "olympic" "red cross"
then the same argument is applied to the gTLD.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have provide an angle of approach.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Warmly,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Kristina <br>
<br>
<div>
<div class="im">
<div>On 25 Feb 2013, at 19:49, Milton L
Mueller <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU"
target="_blank">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple"
style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"
lang="EN-US">
<div>
<div class="im">
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Kristina</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">It
_<i>is</i>_ an issue related to
censorship, and you are on the wrong
side of it. You are telling anyone
who registers certain kinds of words
that ICANN and its "community" will
be able to dictate what kind of
content goes under it. You are
eliminating a domain owner's
editorial discretion, even without
any claim that there is a monopoly.
</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Here
is a simple way for undecided people
to make up their mind on this issue
in a reasonable way:</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">We
own a generic second-level domain:</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<b><span
style="font-size:14pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetgovernance.org/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">internetgovernance.org</a><span> </span> </span></b><b><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></b></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Internet
governance is a generic term.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Here
is a direct challenge to Kathy,
Alain, Norbert and Kristina: Please
tell me why you have a right to
register a third-level domain under<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetgovernance.org/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">internetgovernance.org</a>.
Explain to me why OUR domain should
be forced to resolve YOUR
registrations, which may contain
positions we don't agree with, which
are irrelevant to the purpose of our
site, or maybe even destructive of
it.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">If
you can't answer that question for
my SLD, you can't make the same case
for a TLD. There is no difference.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">I
am really looking forward to the
kind of explanations I will get. I
suspect I will get silence, or some
rather lame excuses.</span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></div>
</div>
<div style="border-style:none none none
solid;border-left-width:1.5pt;border-left-color:blue;padding:0in
0in 0in 4pt">
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none
none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt
0in 0in">
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><b><span
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"><span> </span>NCSG-Discuss
[mailto:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-"
target="_blank">NCSG-</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]<span> </span><b>On
Behalf Of</b>Kristina Macaulay
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<b>Sent:</b><span> </span>Sunday,
February 24, 2013 3:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b><span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b><span> </span>Re:
[NCSG-Discuss] Closed
Generics - a letter together</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">I'd be happy to
contribute or review any
statements regarding this issue,
as I too feel strongly that Closed
Generic words must not become
exclusive or restricted as
proposed.</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">This is a
non-commercial issue.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">I know it's
not related to censorship or
copyright, but it has a similar
notion of precedence of<span> </span><b><u>exclusive
perpetuity</u></b><span> </span>right
over something…on this occasion
it will be a generic term.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><b>This MUST
never happen!!!!</b></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
Warmly,</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
Kristina </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in
0in
12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40,
Avri Doria <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">avri@ACM.ORG</a>>
wrote:</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">Hi,<br>
<br>
Obviously I am not
volunteering for this, but<br>
<br>
I think it is a good idea. I
think at this point one of the
best things we can all
collectively offer are strong
statements from our various
perspectives on this.<span> </span><br>
<br>
I was planing to work on my
own personal statement on why
this is not a problem and
something that was expected,
but would gladly work with
others to produce a common
statement several of us could
sign on to.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:44,
Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">Dear Alain
and All,<br>
I have a question. Who would
like to work with me on a
statement of individuals and
organizations within the NCSG?
Obviously, we don't have
consensus and this will not be
a Stakeholder Group statement,
but there seem to be a lot of
us with similar concerns -
across NPOC and NCUC. And
further, the issue of generic
words used in generic ways is
a classic noncommercial issue.
It's the balance to trademark
law...<span> </span><br>
<br>
If you are interested in
reviewing a statement or
letter, please let me know,
and we'll create a subgroup.<br>
If anyone would like to work
with me on crafting a
statement or letter, welcome!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
:<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<div>
<div class="h5">Hi,<span> </span><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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
Hi<br>
<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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand</a>/.)
<div class="im">
<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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<div class="im">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.<span> </span><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.<span> </span><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).<span> </span><br>
<br>
</div>
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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb</a>).
<div class="im">
<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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" 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...<span> </span><br>
<br>
<br>
Edward Morris wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
:<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
<div class="im">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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">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.<span> </span><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,<span> </span><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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece</a><span> </span> <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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" 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><span> </span><br>
<br>
</div>
- 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/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/</a>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
I am deeply, deeply concerned!<span> </span><br>
Best,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
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>
<br>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in
12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">-----Original
Message-----<br>
From: NCSG-Discuss [<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
] On Behalf<br>
Of William Drake<br>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05,
2013 1:18 PM<br>
To:<span> </span><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">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"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not</a><br>
-<br>
sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in
12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"> </p>
<div style="margin:0in 0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in
12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<span> </span><br>
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA<br>
Member, Board of Directors,
CECI,<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.ceci.ca/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline"
target="_blank">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
Executive-in-residence,
Schulich School of Business,<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a><br>
Treasurer, Global Knowledge
Partnership Foundation,<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gkpfoundation.org/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">www.gkpfoundation.org</a><br>
NA representative, Chasquinet
Foundation,<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chasquinet.org/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">www.chasquinet.org</a><br>
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN,<span> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://npoc.org/"
style="color:purple;text-decoration:underline"
target="_blank">http://npoc.org/</a><br>
O:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824"
value="+15144847824"
target="_blank">+1 514 484
7824</a>; M:<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824"
value="+15147047824"
target="_blank">+1 514 704
7824</a><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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in
12pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif"><br>
<br>
--<span> </span><br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in
0in
0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times
New Roman',serif">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>