<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>