<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>
Because a domain name is not a Top Level Domain. If we follow
your reasoning, there's no reason to perform extensive Technical,
Operational and Financial Showings/Review of New Registries. We
don't examine registrants, so why should we examine New gTLD
Registries?<br>
<br>
Clearly, it's because they are fundamentally different. Here's
something I wrote awhile ago -- my thoughts based on my background
as both a Registrant and a Registry:<font size="+1"><br>
--------------------<br>
</font>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><font size="+1"><b
style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal">Why
is COMPUTER.COM different from .COMPUTER?<o:p></o:p></b></font><!--[endif]--></p>
<font size="+1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><font size="+1">Given
the history of ICANN and our
Applicant Guidebook, the answer to this question follows from
the existing gTLD
program as we have extended it into the New gTLD Program. It
is the expectation
set by our Community, by the Board and by our New gTLD rules
that Registries
register domain names on a non-discriminatory basis to
Registrants and
Registrars. </font></p>
<font size="+1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><font size="+1"><br>
Dot-COM, .ORG and .NET are the
public’s models for .BOOK, .APP and .CLOUD. <span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>People know that Verisign
registers .COM to a
wide variety of companies and businesses. While computer.com
is registered to a
single entity, monopolizing its use, the same is not true of
the TLD itself. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><i
style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Verisign
must operate .COM in a non-discriminatory way – to
registrants and registrars.
That’s the essence of being a gTLD Registry. <o:p></o:p></i></b></font></p>
<font size="+1">
</font>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><font size="+1"><br>
Thus, for the top level and based
on our rules, the public expects generic words such as “com,”
“biz,” “book,”
“app” <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>and “cloud” to
be run as
Registries in the truest sense of the world – as entities
engaged in the
management, operation and security of the TLD -- committed to
registering domain
names on a non-discriminatory basis to registrants and
registrars
globally.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>That’s a
promise set out in
the rules. The public will expect to find the normal array of
competitors and
innovators in New gTLDs, just as within existing TLDs.<br>
</font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><font size="+1"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"><font size="+1">-------------------------</font>
<br>
</span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.25in"><font size="+1"><span
style="mso-spacerun:yes"><br>
<font size="+1">Best,<br>
<font size="+1">Kathy</font><br>
</font><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font size="+1"><font
size="+1"></font></font></font></font></span></font></p>
<font size="+1"></font><font size="+1"><br>
</font>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2355DAA@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 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;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Kristina<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">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. <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">Here
is a simple way for undecided people to make up their mind
on this issue in a reasonable way:<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">We
own a generic second-level 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"><b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">internetgovernance.org
</span></b><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></b></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">Internet
governance is a generic term.
<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">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 internetgovernance.org. 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.
<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">If
you can't answer that question for my SLD, you can't make
the same case for a TLD. There is no difference.
<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
am really looking forward to the kind of explanations I will
get. I suspect I will get silence, or some rather lame
excuses.
<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"><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 style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kristina Macaulay<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics - a
letter together<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a non-commercial issue.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I know it's not related to censorship
or copyright, but it has a similar notion of precedence of
<b><u>exclusive perpetuity</u></b> right over something…on
this occasion it will be a generic term.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>This MUST never happen!!!!</b><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warmly,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kristina <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 24 Feb 2013, at 16:40, Avri
Doria <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@ACM.ORG">avri@ACM.ORG</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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...
<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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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">
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">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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">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">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/">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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">-----Original
Message-----<br>
From: NCSG-Discuss [<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">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: <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">http://www.thedomains.com/2013/02/05/icann-new-gtld-committee-not</a><br>
-<br>
sure-how-to-handle-closed-generic-applications/<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><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">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">
www.schulich.yorku.ca</a><br>
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gkpfoundation.org">
www.gkpfoundation.org</a><br>
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.chasquinet.org">www.chasquinet.org</a><br>
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://npoc.org/">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>