<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><font face="Arial"><font>Hi on the issue of ''closed Generics' I sent the Kleiman's letter to different official parties, whom I though </font>would<font> have an interest for example .book </font>…</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">The Oxford University Press, did not see the need to raise an objection. Below was the response I got.</font></div><div><font face="Arial">I'm awaiting to hear from <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/">http://www.elsevier.com/</a>. </font></div><div><font face="Arial">Also from <a href="http://www.europeana.eu/portal/">http://www.europeana.eu/portal/</a> - But I will imagine no response. </font></div><div><font face="Arial">I've done the same for international cloud service providers etc… but like wise.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">That's where we are at.</font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: tahoma; font-size: x-small; ">Thanks for your call and email; we are unable to help at this time.</span></div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: x-small; "><font face="tahoma"></font> </div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: x-small; "><font face="tahoma">Best wishes,</font></div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: x-small; "><font face="tahoma">Nicola</font></div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: x-small; "><font face="tahoma"></font> </div><div style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: x-small; "><div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><div class="PlainText">Nicola Burton | <a href="mailto:nicola.burton@oup.com">nicola.burton@oup.com</a><br>Oxford University Press | Great Clarendon Street | Oxford | OX2 6DP<br>01865 353911 | 07921 882185 </div></font></div></div>
<br><div><div>On 27 Feb 2013, at 10:11, clarinette <<a href="mailto:clarinettet@GMAIL.COM">clarinettet@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Bringing to your attention:<br>"Ron Paul, former Representative and candidate for U.S. President, has filed a complaint with<a href="http://www.icann.org/" target="_blank"> ICANN</a>
over ownership of the domain names <a href="http://ronpaul.com/">ronpaul.com</a> and <a href="http://ronpaul.org/">ronpaul.org</a>,
currently owned by Ron Paul supporters. Dr. Paul says the current owners
should give up the names because he has a common law trademark on his
name. There is some dispute over whether the owners offered to sell Dr.
Paul the names and if so, for what sum. More <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/11/ron-paul-files-suit-for-domain-name-leaving-supporters-bummed-but-fighting/" target="_blank">here </a>from FoxNews,<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/ron-paul-copyright_n_2658825.html" target="_blank"> here</a> from the Huffington Post.
"<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 February 2013 08:46, Maria Farrell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maria.farrell@gmail.com" target="_blank">maria.farrell@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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..?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br><br>Maria</font></span><div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 February 2013 06:14, Dan Krimm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dan@musicunbound.com" target="_blank">dan@musicunbound.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
<div><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<br>
</div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Internet & Privacy Lawyer - LLM<br><div>Keep the internet safe</div><div><a href="http://flyakite.org/" target="_blank">http://FlyAKite.org/</a></div>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>