<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    [What follows and everything before and thereafter on this subject
    is my own opinion, representing only me, and it is free from
    conflict of interests.]<br>
    <br>
    It is appropriate to refer to the *root* (so all yet-to-be -un TLDs)
    as a public asset , IMO. <br>
    <br>
    But it is appropriate (read *the* most appropriate way) to manage
    extensions of that asset by allowing parties to let them bloom. <br>
    <br>
    Sure, we collectively may watch the soil and the amount of light
    (trademark, etc) that serve as a blooming ground, and thus it is
    appropriate to cast a regulative eye  on registries and TLDs to
    insure many things that we would prefer as a function of the
    likelihood to achieve x [global public] good.<br>
    <br>
    Nicolas<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/02/2013 1:31 AM, David Cake
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:3E645566-0DD4-4F13-A0A1-F22593709234@difference.com.au"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
        charset=windows-1252">
      <base href="x-msg://320/">This is, of course, a sleight of hand,
      as Milton should well know. 
      <div>The case that being a registrant of a second or third level
        domain is effectively ownership (apart from a number of specific
        legal ways in which it may not be) has been established, but the
        question of whether being a registry for a top level domain is
        thus the same as ownership, or should be considered as
        administration of a public asset, is not settled and is
        *precisely* what is under discussion. </div>
      <div>And the analogy that the same rules that apply at lower
        levels is a slick, easy, line of generic reasoning that is
        easily shown to false in operation. </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>There is a precise analogy with trademark law here. We allow
        registration of a combination of generic words as a trademark,
        but generally not a generic word alone, certainly not for all
        classes. </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Kathys example, that we don't simply allow TLD owners to just
        chuck up a copy of BIND on some cheap commercial hosting, even
        if it is a closed domain likely to only have a few dozen
        registrants within it, applies too. To treat TLDs as a very
        special important case of holding something in public trust,
        that you can't simply throw out when you are done with it,
        applies to TLDs in many many ways. Why should we suddenly assume
        that this special treatment of TLDs is irrelevant to ownership
        and registration?</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Not that I think this is an argument against closed generics
        - but I do think this particular argument FOR closed generics
        TLDs immediately following from closed 2LDs, 3LDs, is very weak
        indeed. </div>
      <div>Cheers</div>
      <div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>David</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>
        <div>
          <div>On 26/02/2013, at 3:49 AM, Milton L Mueller <<a
              moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>>
            wrote:</div>
          <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
          <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; orphans: 2; text-align:
              -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
              white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
              -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
              0px; " lang="EN-US">
              <div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; ">
                <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
                  font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span
                    style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); font-family:
                    Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; ">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:<o:p></o:p></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; ">internetgovernance.org</a><span
                        class="Apple-converted-space"> </span> </span></b><b><span
                      style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
                      sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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
                      class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                      moz-do-not-send="true"
                      href="http://internetgovernance.org" style="color:
                      purple; text-decoration: underline; ">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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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 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
                            class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>NCSG-Discuss
                          [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG">mailto:NCSG</a>-<a moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="mailto:DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]<span
                            class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>On
                            Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Kristina
                          Macaulay<br>
                          <b>Sent:</b><span
                            class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Sunday,
                          February 24, 2013 3:16 PM<br>
                          <b>To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                            moz-do-not-send="true"
                            href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
                          <b>Subject:</b><span
                            class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re:
                          [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics - a letter
                          together<o:p></o:p></span></div>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                  <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt;
                    font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">This
                      is a non-commercial issue.<o:p></o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></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<b><u>exclusive
                          perpetuity</u></b><span
                        class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>right over
                      something…on this occasion it will be a generic
                      term.<o:p></o:p></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><o:p></o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Warmly,<o:p></o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                      12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Kristina <o:p></o:p></div>
                  </div>
                  <div>
                    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;
                      font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
                      serif; "><o:p> </o:p></p>
                    <div>
                      <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; ">avri@ACM.ORG</a>>
                          wrote:<o:p></o:p></div>
                      </div>
                      <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                        12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><br>
                        <br>
                        <o:p></o:p></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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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>
                        <o:p></o:p></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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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>
                        <o:p></o:p></div>
                      <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                        12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">Hi,<span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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; ">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...<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://webcast.igf2012.com/ondemand"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">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"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>>
                        wrote:<br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <o:p></o:p></div>
                      <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                        12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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.  Non-discrimination and Equal Access are
                        part of our domain name DNA.   (See "Base
                        Agreement & Specifications", Specification
                        9,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">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"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">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 class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        Edward Morris wrote:<br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        :<br>
                        <br>
                        <o:p></o:p></div>
                      <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                        12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; ">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; ">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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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,<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; ">http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/beauty-lies-in-the-domain-of-the-highest-bidder/article3929612.ece</a><span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </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; ">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
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
                        <br>
                        -    Techworld: Problems arise where one entity
                        is seeking exclusive use of strings with broad
                        applicability, 11/21/2012,<span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><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; ">http://news.techworld.com/networking/3412616/icann-issues-early-warnings-over-controversial-top-level-domains/</a><br>
                        <br>
                        I am deeply, deeply concerned!<span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
                        Best,<br>
                        Kathy<br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <o:p></o:p></div>
                      <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>
                        <o:p></o:p></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; ">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 class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
                        <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">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; ">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: 0in 0in 12pt;
                        font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
                        serif; "><o:p> </o:p></p>
                      <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size:
                        12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div>
                      <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt;
                        font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
                        serif; "><br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        --<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
                        Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA<br>
                        Member, Board of Directors, CECI,<span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://www.ceci.ca" style="color:
                          purple; text-decoration: underline; ">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
                        Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of
                        Business,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a><br>
                        Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership
                        Foundation,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://www.gkpfoundation.org"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">www.gkpfoundation.org</a><br>
                        NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation,<span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true"
                          href="http://www.chasquinet.org" style="color:
                          purple; text-decoration: underline; ">www.chasquinet.org</a><br>
                        Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN,<span
                          class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
                          moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://npoc.org/"
                          style="color: purple; text-decoration:
                          underline; ">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: 0in 0in 12pt;
                        font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
                        serif; "><br>
                        <br>
                        --<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
                        <br>
                        <br>
                        <o:p></o:p></p>
                    </div>
                  </div>
                </div>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>