<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">It’s true that as a hot issue this would be good for one of our policy conferences, but the program committee was more focused on issues specific to China’s internet,
and the closed-generic debate is more of an American or western debate that has no special relevance to China. Maybe in Durban?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">I would, however, like to force all opponents of closed to generics to be able to conclusively identify a generic term when it appears in Chinese characters ;-)
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";color:#1F497D">--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";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 [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Maria Farrell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Closed Generics [proposals]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hosting a discussion in Beijing would be a great idea. People are eager to debate it so would come to our meeting.
<br>
<br>
What do we need to do to make it happen..?<br>
<br>
Maria<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 27 February 2013 06:14, Dan Krimm <<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com" target="_blank">dan@musicunbound.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I absorb the two sides of this discussion (seeing merits in both) I'm<br>
finding myself wanting a more conceptual framework in which to evaluate the<br>
points.<br>
<br>
Technically, a domain (TLD) is a domain (2LD) is a domain (3LD). [Point<br>
Milton]<br>
<br>
Administratively, different levels have different agents of control. It<br>
seems to me that in one sense the *control* is the important thing. Who<br>
gets to determine who gets to have/control one of these, at whatever level?<br>
[Point Kathy]<br>
<br>
If TLDs were ubiquitous (following their being cheap and easy to set up) it<br>
wouldn't matter so much who controlled one string or another because there<br>
would be robust competition and alternatives. Milton's stance would be<br>
supported by real non-scarcity in TLDs.<br>
<br>
In fact, though, even though TLDs are being opened up from near stasis, the<br>
barrier to entry of application fee and the simple fact of finite<br>
administrative bandwidth in processing applications means that there will<br>
still be some degree of meaningful scarcity in the system for the<br>
foreseeable future.<br>
<br>
In that case, is there a strategic advantage (economic/political) in<br>
getting the string before someone else? (Especially if alternatives are<br>
not easy to come by -- like if .book exists, but not all those others like<br>
.bks, etc.) Seems there could be, and that should be a practical<br>
consideration even if in principle it ought to be moot.<br>
<br>
Or it could *all* be moot if no one really uses domains to discover web<br>
sites anymore. What is the real, practical economic/political value of<br>
controlling a TLD? [Point Andrew]<br>
<br>
Some points here are contingent upon contingencies of current TLD policy --<br>
in principle they could be mooted by a more global change in policy, but<br>
that more global change in policy may not be realistically forthcoming<br>
given the quango-mire that is ICANN.<br>
<br>
So, what I'd love to see is a tracing of a dependency-structure for current<br>
and proposed policies.<br>
<br>
I'm nowhere near working this out comprehensively myself, but would love to<br>
see those more experienced with the situation in the long term do so, if<br>
possible.<br>
<br>
I think Pro/Con can lead us toward this (sort of a case-study discovery<br>
process), but I don't think it will get us all the way there by itself.<br>
Not to discourage it at all, but maybe let's aim further too, yes?<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
PS: Regrettably, I can't be present at any forthcoming in-person meetings,<br>
Beijing or otherwise. But, I can occasionally get to email when I have a<br>
passing opportunity. Maybe I can offer some questions/comments along the<br>
way as the discussion develops.<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do<br>
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
At 12:41 PM +0100 2/26/13, Avri Doria wrote:<br>
>Hi,<br>
><br>
>I think this is a great idea, and something that would best be done by<br>
>someone who was not partisan on the issue.<br>
><br>
>Where you offering?<br>
><br>
>avri<br>
><br>
>On 26 Feb 2013, at 12:20, Clarinettet wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi all,<br>
>><br>
>> May I submit one easy suggestion. Obviously, as every option, there are<br>
>>pros and cons. To adopt a common position, we need to balance the pros<br>
>>and cons. I suggest a worksheet to be created with two columns<br>
>>representing each side's views and vote from there. That way, everyone<br>
>>can validity judge and discuss. It's not very easy to follow discussions<br>
>>on series of emails.<br>
>><br>
>> Do you agree?<br>
>><br>
>> Tara Taubman<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>