<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">Thank you Kathy,<br>
<br>
Lou<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/27/2013 8:32 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:512EB39D.1060405@kathykleiman.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Easy Milton, Richemont has applied for "watches" and "jewelry" in
Chinese characters. I oppose those too.<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<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>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23578E8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<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 [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Maria Farrell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:46 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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
[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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>